HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/19/2020 - Landmark Preservation Commission - Agenda - Regular MeetingPage 1
Meg Dunn, Chair Location:
Alexandra Wallace, Co-Vice Chair This meeting will be held
Mollie Bredehoft, Co-Vice Chair remotely via Zoom
Michael Bello
Kurt Knierim
Elizabeth Michell
Kevin Murray Staff Liaison:
Anne Nelsen Karen McWilliams
Vacant Seat Historic Preservation Manager
Regular Meeting
August 19, 2020
5:30 PM
Landmark Preservation Commission
AGENDA
Pursuant to City Council Ordinance 079, 2020, a determination has been made by the Chair after consultation
with the City staff liaison that conducting the hearing using remote technology would be prudent.
This remote Landmark Preservation Commission meeting will be available online via Zoom or by phone. No one will
be allowed to attend in person. The meeting will be available to join beginning at 5:00 p.m. Participants should try to
join at least 15 minutes prior to the 5:30 p.m. start time.
ONLINE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
You will need an internet connection on a laptop, computer, or smartphone, and may join the meeting through Zoom
at https://zoom.us/j/92814828882. (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio). Keep
yourself on muted status.
For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to
speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to comment.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION BY PHONE:
Please dial 253-215-8782 and enter Webinar ID 928 1482 8882. Keep yourself on muted status.
For public comments, when the Chair asks participants to click the “Raise Hand” button if they wish to speak, phone
participants will need to hit *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an
opportunity to address the Commission. When you are called, hit *6 to unmute yourself.
Documents to Share: Any document or presentation a member of the public wishes to provide to the Commission
for its consideration must be emailed to kmcwilliams@fcgov.com at least 24 hours before the meeting.
Provide Comments via Email: Individuals who are uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or
participate by phone are encouraged to participate by emailing comments to kmcwilliams@fcgov.com at least 24
hours prior to the meeting. If your comments are specific to any of the discussion items on the agenda, please
indicate that in the subject line of your email. Staff will ensure your comments are provided to the Commission.
Packet Pg. 1
Page 2
Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government (CLG) authorized by the National Park Service and History Colorado based
on its compliance with federal and state historic preservation standards. CLG standing requires Fort Collins to maintain
a Landmark Preservation Commission composed of members of which a minimum of 40% meet federal standards for
professional experience from preservation-related disciplines, including, but not limited to, historic architecture,
architectural history, archaeology, and urban planning. For more information, see Article III, Division 19 of the Fort
Collins Municipal Code.
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and
will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for
assistance.
Video of the meeting will be broadcast at 1:00 p.m. the following day through the Comcast cable system on Channel
14 or 881 (HD). Please visit http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/ for the daily cable schedule. The video will also be available
for later viewing on demand here: http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php.
•CALL TO ORDER
•ROLL CALL
•AGENDA REVIEW
o Staff Review of Agenda
o Consent Agenda Review
This Review provides an opportunity for the Commission and citizens to pull items from the
Consent Agenda. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be “pulled” off the Consent
Agenda and considered separately.
Commission-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered before Discussion Items.
Citizen-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered after Discussion Items.
•STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
•PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
•CONSENT AGENDA
1.CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JULY 15, 2020.
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the July 15, 2020 regular meeting of the
Landmark Preservation Commission.
•CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW UP
This is an opportunity for Commission members to comment on items adopted or approved on the
Consent Calendar.
The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Commission to spend its time and energy on the
important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Agenda. Anyone may
request an item on this calendar to be "pulled" off the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
Agenda items pulled from the Consent Agenda will be considered separately under Pulled Consent
Items. Items remaining on the Consent Agenda will be approved by Commission with one vote. The
Consent Agenda consists of:
●Approval of Minutes
●Items of no perceived controversy
●Routine administrative actions
Packet Pg. 2
Page 3
•PULLED FROM CONSENT
Any agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar by a Commission member, or member of the
public, will be discussed at this time.
•DISCUSSION AGENDA
2.REPORT ON STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS FOR DESIGNATED PROPERTIES
Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without
submitting to the Landmark Preservation Commission, with issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness or
a SHPO report under Chapter 14, Article IV of the City’s Municipal Code. This item is a report of all
such review decisions since the last regular meeting of the Commission.
3.OAK 140 MIXED USE PROJECT – FINAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DESCRIPTION: A five-story, mixed-use development with ground floor office and retail, parking
on levels 1 and 2, and affordable apartment units (studio, 1 and 2 bedroom) on
levels 1, 3, 4, and 5, to be constructed on the parcels currently addressed as
140 E Oak and 143 Remington in the Historic Core of the Downtown District.
APPLICANT: Owners: Downtown Development Authority (DDA) and Housing Catalyst
Design: Shopworks Architecture; Ripley Design; General Contractor: I-Kota
Construction
4.608 E DRAKE (ANTIOCH CHURCH) – CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DESCRIPTION:
APPLICANT:
Proposed exterior alterations to 608 E Drake, including redesign of entrance
and additional square footage on the south elevation and wrapping the east
wing as alterations to some of the building's historic features and materials.
Andy Goldman, VFLA; AK Ford, Antioch Church
•OTHER BUSINESS
•ADJOURNMENT
Packet Pg. 3
Landmark Preservation Commission Chair Determination that Meeting Remotely is Prudent
Packet Pg. 4
Date:Roll CallBello Bredehoft Knierim Michell Murray Nelsen Vacant WallaceDunn Voteabsent-7 presentConsent - 1. July 15, 2020 Minutes ApprovalBello Murray Vacant Bredehoft Michell Wallace Knierim NelsenDunnYes Yes - absent Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes7-03 - OAK 140 Final Development Review - Recommend ApprovalMurray Vacant Bredehoft Michell Wallace Knierim Nelsen BelloDunnYes - absent Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes7-0Post Break Roll CallBello Bredehoft Knierim Michell Murray Nelsen Vacant WallaceDunnabsent-7 presentRoll Call & Voting RecordLandmark Preservation Commission8/19/2020
LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION
THIS IS A PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD
Please contact Gretchen Schiager at 970-224-6098 or gschiager@fcgov.com if you inadvertently end up with it. Thank you!
Visitor Log
[This meeting was conducted remotely. The Secretary filled out the visitor log.]
DATE: 8-19-20
Name Mailing Address Email and/or Phone Reason for Attendance
Kristin Fritz, Housing Catalyst Oak 140 Development Applicant
Chad Holtzinger, Shopworks Oak 140 Development Applicant
Matt Robenault, DDA Oak 140 Development Applicant
Andy Goldman, VFLA 608 E. Drake Addition Applicant
AK Ford, Antioch Church 608 E. Drake Addition Applicant
Landmark Preservation Commission Hearing
Date: 8/19/20
Document Log
(Any written comments or documents received since the agenda packet was published.)
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Draft Minutes for the LPC July 15, 2020 Hearing
DISCUSSION AGENDA:
2. Staff Design Review Decisions Report
• None
3. Oak 140 Final Development Review
• Updated Staff Presentation 8-19-20 – replaced in packet
4. 608 E. Drake Conceptual Review
• None
EXHIBITS RECEIVED DURING HEARING:
Item # Exhibit # Description:
3 A Updated Applicant Presentation
4 A Updated Applicant Presentation
Agenda Item 1
Item 1, Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 19, 2020
Landmark Preservation Commission
STAFF
Gretchen Schiager, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JULY 15, 2020 REGULAR MEETING
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the July 15, 2020 regular meeting of the Landmark
Preservation Commission.
ATTACHMENTS
1. LPC July 15, 2020 Minutes – DRAFT
Packet Pg. 5
DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 1 July 15, 2020
Meg Dunn, Chair Location:
Alexandra Wallace, Co-Vice Chair This meeting was held remotely
Michael Bello using Zoom technology.
Mollie Bredehoft
Kurt Knierim
Elizabeth Michell
Kevin Murray
Anne Nelsen
Vacant Seat
Regular Meeting
July 15, 2020
Minutes
•CALL TO ORDER
Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
(**Secretary's Note: Due to the COVID-19 crisis and state and local orders to remain safer at home and
not gather, all Commission members, staff, and citizens attended the meeting remotely, via Zoom.)
•ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Bello, Dunn, Knierim, Michell, Murray, Nelsen, Wallace
ABSENT: Bredehoft
STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Bertolini, Yatabe, Schiager
•AGENDA REVIEW
No changes to posted agenda.
•CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW
No items were pulled from consent.
•STAFF REPORTS
None.
•PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
Landmark
Preservation
Commission
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 6
DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 2 July 15, 2020
• CONSENT AGENDA
1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JUNE 17, 2020
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the June 17, 2020 regular meeting of the
Landmark Preservation Commission.
2. STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES
Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without
submitting to the Landmarks Preservation Commission, with issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness
or a SHPO report under Chapter 14, Article IV of the City’s Municipal Code. This item is a report of
all such review decisions since the last regular meeting of the Commission.
Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of
the July 15, 2020 regular meeting as presented.
Ms. Nelson seconded. The motion passed 7-0.
• DISCUSSION AGENDA
3. 359 LINDEN (GINGER AND BAKER) – SUNSHADE ADDITION
DESCRIPTION: This is a request for the addition of a sunshade structure to the north elevation
of the historic building at 359 Linden Street (Ginger and Baker).
APPLICANT: Chris Aronson (VFLA); Jack and Ginger Graham (Owners)
Staff Report
Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She provided a brief history of the building and defined the
area of adjacency. She mentioned that since this property is not landmarked, the Commission is not
the decision maker, but will make a recommendation. She reviewed the 2015 renovations and the
proposed alteration.
Ms. Bzdek shared the staff findings related to the Code standards that apply to this review and asked
the Commission to consider several key questions.
Applicant Presentation
Ginger Graham addressed the Commission and explained her desire to expand the restaurant’s
outdoor seating in a way that will provide usable space into the fall given the current restrictions
related to the pandemic.
Mr. Aronson discussed the design considerations and shared the plans. He talked about color
choices and showed details about the type of sunshade selected for the project. He said that no
structural steel would need to be added to the building, only to the concrete. He talked about the
openness of the design and the option for roll-down shades. He showed the Commission renderings
from different views, both with the shades up and with them down. He discussed the balance
between function and sensitivity to the historic character.
Public Input
None
Commission Questions
Mr. Murray asked if black was chosen for the frame to go with the upper railing color and if they had
considered white to make it disappear more. Mr. Aronson said there was concern that white might
make it appear to be part of the original building. Mr. Murray asked about the transparency of the
screen. Mr. Aronson stated the material is available in a variety of opacities. Ms. Graham stated that
they wanted the shades to be as transparent as possible, both as a business driver and for aesthetic
reasons so that guests may enjoy the street scene.
Ms. Nelsen commented that the shades looked extremely transparent. Mr. Murray said the
transparency was import in order to see the windows.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 7
DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 3 July 15, 2020
Chair Dunn asked if this was considered before the pandemic. Ms. Graham mentioned that the
original designs included a completely closed-in patio, but at that time they decided to leave it open.
The pandemic has heightened the desire to go forward with creating more usable spaces.
Ms. Michell asked if the permeability of the screen changes with the opacity. Mr. Aronson explained
that sun protection would change with the opacity, but the holes in the screen are so small that wind
and rain aren’t a concern. Ms. Michell clarified that her concern with permeability was from the
perspective of having sufficient ventilation during the pandemic, especially if the louvred shade was
closed. Mr. Aronson responded that the required distancing between tables would allow for adequate
ventilation.
Commission Discussion
Standard 3
Mr. Murray stated that the structure is sufficiently transparent, but he would still prefer to see a white
frame to make it less noticeable against the building. The other members preferred the black frame,
as it clearly differentiates what is new, is more compatible with the building and thus meets the
standards.
Chair Dunn commented that the frame, screens and louvres are not ornate, which is also compatible
with the building.
Standard 10
Members agreed the addition is removable.
Standard 2
Chair Dunn stated that no historic materials would be removed. Ms. Nelsen said the addition
maintains visibility and does not detract from the building.
Standard 9
Members expressed no concerns.
Commission Deliberation
Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker
approval of a Minor Amendment to add a shade structure to 359 Linden, finding it complies with
the standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7, specifically the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Properties.
Mr. Murray seconded. The motion passed 7-0.
4. 330 EAST MYRTLE STREET, THE J.A. LEIBY RESIDENCE – DEMOLITION AND NEW SINGLE-
FAMILY CONSTRUCTION – DESIGN REVIEW
DESCRIPTION: The owner is seeking to demolish the existing contributing building and
construct a new single-family dwelling on the property.
APPLICANT: Douglas Bennett (owner), 521 N. Whitcomb St., Fort Collins, CO 80521
Staff Report
Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report. He defined the Commission’s role, which is to issue a report
on behalf of the Commission and provide additional comment regarding the impacts of the demolition
and new construction on the Laurel School Historic District.
Mr. Bertolini provided some historic background on the property. He noted that the garage was
constructed between 1925 and 1948 and both the house and garage were listed by the National
Register as contributing to the Laurel School Historic District.
He provided contextual photos of neighboring properties and described the existing property and the
proposed alterations, including sharing the site plan and materials information.
In response to the Commission questions at the work session, Mr. Bertolini showed an additional
rendering provided by the applicant, as well as photos of a similar project from the same builder.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 8
DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 4 July 15, 2020
Mr. Bertolini explained it is Staff’s finding that the overall project does not meet the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, but that the new construction generally meets Standard 9. He
also posed some questions for the Commission to consider in their discussion.
Applicant Presentation
Mr. Bennett spoke briefly to the Commission about the property and the proposed alterations.
Public Input
None
Commission Questions
Chair Dunn asked whether the garage or house was built first, as sometimes people would live in the
garage while building the house. Mr. Bertolini did not find any evidence that was the case with this
property.
Members discussed the locations of similar houses in Fort Collins, noting that there are very few.
Chair Dunn asked whether the eaves would line up with the house next to it, and why this house was
going to sit lower than the neighboring houses. Mr. Bennett explained the surrounding homes had
raised foundations, and this one will be lower to even out the eave lines.
Chair Dunn asked how the width of the neighboring houses compare with this one at 39 feet. Mr.
Bennett said this home will be a little wider than others, adding that the driveway will not be in the
front of the house. He mentioned another home that was 40 feet, but most of the others are about 30
feet. He noted they have conformed with City Code and setback requirements.
Chair Dunn asked if there are three main materials. Mr. Bennett said he is going to abandon the
board and batten, so the home will be all stucco and lap-siding.
Commission Discussion
Mr. Bello said the building looks a lot bigger than the neighbors, but it seems to fit into the
neighborhood better than the one on Oak. Mr. Bennett said it will look like the one on Oak.
Chair Dunn asked to see the surrounding homes. Mr. Bertolini displayed the neighborhood in Google
Maps. Mr. Murray asked about the distance from the new construction to the neighbor. Mr. Bennett
explained there was a 7’ distance.
Chair Dunn asked whether the Commission agrees with Staff’s finding that the new construction
generally complies with the standards. Mr. Knierim said he was more comfortable with it after seeing
the rest of the neighborhood. He stated this one blends in with the character of the neighborhood
better than the other new construction in the area.
Mr. Murray said he was glad the foundation was lowered so the rooflines would be more aligned. He
wondered if it presents any concerns with the floodplain. Mr. Bennett responded that this property is
not in the floodplain. He explained they are using a zero-clearance foundation.
Ms. Nelsen asked about the status of reviews with City Staff. Mr. Bennett said there were no issues
with Zoning, and that he didn’t foresee any issues with Stormwater. Mr. Bertolini concurred.
Chair Dunn said this house meets the setbacks to align with the rest of the block, and the prairie style
fits with the styles of the area. She also liked the hipped roof. She expressed concerns about the
complexity of the roof form in contrast to the simple roof forms on the block. She thinks two materials
will be better than the three that were originally proposed. She also thinks it is more ornate than
others on this block and would fit in better on Oak Street.
Ms. Nelsen stated it will be the biggest house on the block, adding that it feels a little out of place. It’s
not really compatible with the houses on the block but still blends in fairly well. There is also potential
for a false sense of history.
Chair Dunn expressed concern about signing the letter to the state without revisions that would more
closely reflect the Commission’s thoughts.
Mr. Murray said this is a little wider than most of the other homes in the neighborhood, but it generally
fits due to the diversity of the neighborhood.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 9
DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 5 July 15, 2020
Ms. Michell stated it sticks out as a fancy house in a simple neighborhood. She likes the house, just
not in that location.
Ms. Wallace said it could fit in the District but does not fit as well on that particular block. Chair Dunn
said if it were on Elizabeth or Remington it might fit in better.
Mr. Knierim said since there is such a mix of houses on the block, he is not concerned with the size or
ornateness. However, he is comfortable with adding some verbiage about those issues in the letter.
Mr. Bello said he is comfortable with the house.
Chair Dunn suggested amending the letter to say “somewhat compatible” rather than “generally
compatible”.
Commission Deliberation
Mr. Knierim moved that the wording of the letter be changed from generally compatible to
somewhat compatible.
Ms. Nelsen asked if that was specific enough. Mr. Yatabe suggested the motion could include
everything.
Ms. Michell seconded.
Mr. Yatabe suggested more detail and clarity in the motion would be helpful for Staff.
Mr. Knierim rescinded the motion.
Mr. Knierim moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission find that the proposed plans
and specifications for the alterations to the J.A. Leiby Residence at 330 E. Myrtle Street as
presented, do not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties, that the new construction does somewhat meet Standard 9 in relation to the Laurel
School Historic District, and that our findings shall be provided to the owner and potentially
transmitted to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer to update the property’s
historic status.
Mr. Murray seconded.
Mr. Bello asked about the impact of saying these alterations don’t meet the standards. Chair Dunn
stated that the property owner would no longer be eligible for tax credits or other financial incentives.
Mr. Bertolini confirmed that was the case. Chair Dunn clarified that the Commission has less
authority in this matter because the property is listed on the National Register but has not been
designated as a local Fort Collins landmark.
The motion passed 7-0.
[Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a short break at this time. Roll call was conducted at the end of
the break to establish all members were present.]
5. OVERVIEW OF COLLEGE DOWNTOWN AND HOWES & MELDRUM HISTORIC PROPERTY
SURVEYS
DESCRIPTION: This item is intended to introduce the Landmark Preservation Commission and
community to two historic property surveys currently underway in the
Downtown area. Both survey projects are being conducted by Ron Sladek,
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
Presentation
Ms. McWilliams introduced the item and turned the presentation over to Mr. Sladek.
Mr. Sladek talked about the purpose of the survey and defined the project area, which currently runs
from Laporte Avenue to Mulberry Street. There are 41 properties in that area facing College, but the
boundary may need to be expanded a little to include 50 properties. He said the buildings are
predominantly Commercial. He discussed the survey process and the progress of the project.
He explained how significance is determined with regard to age, integrity and local criteria such as
events, persons/groups, design/construction and information potential. Ultimately there will be a
finding for each property as to whether it is eligible for designation with the exception of any cases
where insufficient information is available.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 10
DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 6 July 15, 2020
Mr. Murray asked whether there is any information that can be viewed online. Mr. Sladek stated he
would bring some completed site forms to the next meeting.
Chair Dunn asked whether the Commission would have input into the potential additional properties
to be surveyed. Ms. McWilliams stated that Staff would bring those to the Commission at the next
work session to get their input.
Chair Dunn asked about the timeline. Mr. Sladek said the grant goes through October 2021.
• OTHER BUSINESS
None
• ADJOURNMENT
Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager.
Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________.
_____________________________________
Meg Dunn, Chair
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 11
Agenda Item 2
Item 2, Page 1
STAFF REPORT August 19, 2020
Landmark Preservation Commission
ITEM NAME
STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES, JULY 2 TO AUGUST 5, 2020
STAFF
Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner
INFORMATION
Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to
the Landmark Preservation Commission, with issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness or a SHPO report under
Chapter 14, Article IV of the City’s Municipal Code. Staff decisions are provided in this report and posted on
the HPD’s “Design Review Notification” page. Notice of staff decisions are provided to the public and LPC for
their information, but are not subject to appeal under Chapter 14, Article IV, except in cases where an
applicant has requested a Certificate of Appropriateness for a project and that request has been denied. In that
event, the applicant may appeal staff’s decision to the LPC pursuant to 14-55 of the Municipal Code, within two
weeks of staff denial. The report below covers the period between July 2 and August 5, 2020.
Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of
Decision
125 E. Myrtle St. Roof replacement of existing tar & gravel with
low-profile “galvalume” standing seam. Non-
contributing property in Laurel School Historic
District but likely Landmark eligible. Reviewed by
staff under LUC 3.4.7.
Approved July 2, 2020
319 E. Magnolia St. Demolition and replacement of rear addition on
home in existing footprint. Contributing property
in Laurel School Historic District (NRHP).
Reviewed by staff under MC Chapter 14, Article
IV.
Approved July 10, 2020
637 Remington St. Rooftop solar on rear (west) elevation of side-
gabled property. Contributing property in Laurel
School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by
staff under MC Chapter 14, Article IV.
Approved July 13, 2020
721 Peterson St. Addition of front porch columns and rear window
replacement. Contributing property in Laurel
School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by
staff under MC Chapter 14, Article IV.
Approved July 22, 2020
419 E. Laurel Major alteration to rear, c.1947 garage. Garage
considered non-historic due to age, design, and
materials. Contributing property in Laurel School
Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff
under MC Chapter 14, Article IV.
Approved July 23, 2020
251 Jefferson St. Minor exterior modifications for interior tenant
finish, including front door repair and new
exterior lighting. Addition of wood purlin awnings
removed from project. Contributing property in
Approved July 27, 2020
Packet Pg. 12
Agenda Item 2
Item 2, Page 2
Old Town Landmark District. Reviewed by staff
under MC Chapter 14, Article IV.
729 Mathews St. Addition of a rear covered patio over existing
concrete pad. Contributing property in Laurel
School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by
staff under MC Chapter 14, Article IV.
Approved August 3,
2020
629 Smith St. Construction of new garage at rear of lot on
empty space along alley. Property is a duplex
that may be Landmark eligible. Reviewed by
staff under LUC 3.4.7.
Approved August 4,
2020
825 Remington St. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingle).
Contributing property in Laurel School Historic
District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under MC
Chapter 14, Article IV.
Approved August 4,
2020
1123 Laporte Ave. Deconstruct and replace existing wood deck on
rear elevation with composite decking with metal
railing. Property is multi-family and may be
Landmark eligible. Reviewed by staff under LUC
3.4.7.
Approved August 4,
2020
Packet Pg. 13
Staff Design Review Decisions, July 2 to August 5, 2020
Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner
Landmark Preservation Commission, August 19, 2020
Purpose of New Discussion Item
• For Discussion, but no LPC action required/requested
• Intended to prompt LPC members to ask questions where needed
• Provide opportunity for staff to highlight relevant projects
• Will typically exclude decisions for which the 14-day appeal period
is still active.
2
1
2
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 14
Highlight: Solar at 637 Remington
• Meets SOI Standards
• Minimal/no visibility from ROW
3
Recent Solar on Historic Buildings
• 318 E. Myrtle St.
• Installation on non-historic
accessory structure
• 605 S. College Ave (Beebe
Clinic)
• Rooftop solar screened
behind parapet wall
• 637 Peterson St.
• Rooftop solar on rear, non-
historic addition
4
318 E. Myrtle St.
605 S. College Ave
3
4
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 15
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 1
STAFF REPORT August 19, 2020
Landmark Preservation Commission
PROJECT NAME
OAK 140 MIXED USE PROJECT – FINAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
STAFF
Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A five-story, mixed-use development with ground floor office and retail,
parking on levels 1 and 2, and affordable apartment units (studio, 1 and 2
bedroom) on levels 1, 3, 4, and 5, to be constructed on the parcels currently
addressed as 140 E Oak and 143 Remington in the Historic Core of the
Downtown District.
APPLICANT TEAM: Owners: Downtown Development Authority (DDA) and Housing Catalyst
Design: Shopworks Architecture; Ripley Design; General Contractor: I-Kota
Construction
LPC’S ROLE IN REVIEW PROCESS:
This is a Type 2 application that requires a neighborhood meeting and will go to the Planning and Zoning Board
for a decision when it is ready for hearing.
• To date, the applicant has completed a conceptual review and Round 1 review process with City staff,
held a neighborhood meeting via Zoom on June 9, 2020, and completed a conceptual review with the
LPC on June 17, 2020.
• A Round 2 Project Development Plan (PDP) application has been submitted for staff review. This
includes a revised design that reflects the incorporation of the 143 Remington building site into the
project.
• The applicant will also submit a federal low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) application.
• The applicant team is returning to the LPC at tonight’s meeting for findings and a recommendation to the
decision maker (Planning & Zoning Board) regarding the project’s compliance with Section 3.4.7 of the
Fort Collins Land Use Code.
• Assuming approval by P&Z, staff will complete the review process following submittal of the Final
Development Plan (FDP), and will also work with the applicant to finalize the plan of protection for historic
resources and the development agreement.
BACKGROUND: From 1907 to 2012, 140 E Oak Street was the site of a 3+-story structure, but the exterior
architecture evolved over time. The original 1907 YMCA Building was a brick rectangular structure, a clay tile roof,
and a half-exposed basement level of rough-cut sandstone. When the building became the Elks Lodge in 1939,
exterior alterations included removal of the entry portico, modification of the roof to create a more modest, shallow
profile, and alterations to the window design. After the building was extensively damaged in the 1977 gas leak
explosion, the building’s exterior was wholly reconstructed but retained similar overall scale, and the addition of
some articulation of the massing. After 35 years, that structure was demolished in 2012 and the site has remained
vacant to date.
Packet Pg. 16
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 2
PROJECT SUMMARY: This project is the product of a partnership between Housing Catalyst and the Downtown
Development Authority (DDA). Housing Catalyst is the local affordable housing developer that is governed by a
Board of Commissioners appointed by the Fort Collins City Council. The DDA uses tax increment financing to
partner with private investors to carry out real estate improvements in the Downtown and is also served by a
volunteer board appointment for City Council. Housing Catalyst plans to form a tax credit partnership to develop
and manage the affordable housing portion of the project, which is currently shown as 79 residential units
(studios, one and two bedroom). On the ground floor, the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) would own
and manage approximately 6,751 square feet of commercial space. The building also includes 24,267 square
feet/66 spaces of parking (58 spaces required) on the second story.
Two requests for modifications of standards will be included in the proposal and are reflective of the project’s
financing plan, which is tied to the number of affordable residential units it can provide. These include a request
for modification of the building height standard in the historic core and a request for modification of the alley
setback requirement.
AREA OF ADJACENCY SUMMARY:
The “area of adjacency” for the purpose of historic review is the area with an outer boundary that is 200 hundred
feet in all directions from the perimeter of the development site. Any lot or parcel of property is considered within
the area of adjacency if any portion of the lot or parcel is within the 200-foot outer boundary.
According to the requirements in 3.4.7(B), the following historic resources meet the above requirement and shall
be used for the establishment of the Historic Influence Area, to which the design compatibility standards in
3.4.7(E) , Table 1 apply.
Remington Street:
• 133 Remington (Equinox Brewing); recent determination of landmark eligibility
• 142 Remington; recent determination of landmark eligibility
• Poudre Garage, 148 Remington (designated landmark)
• McHugh-Andrews House, 202 Remington (designated landmark designed by Montezuma Fuller)
Oak Street:
• Zoric Cleaners (210 E Oak)
S College Avenue:
• The 100 Block of S College Avenue is currently undergoing historic survey in conjunction with a
grant-funded survey project that will update existing documentation. Existing data indicates that
the block consists of a mix of 1 and 2 story commercial buildings, some of which are already
formally designated and others that meet the criteria to be designated. The survey project may
add additional properties to the list of recognized historic resources. For the purpose of this
project review, staff has established that recognition of the scale and character of this block as a
whole, with the specific examples of 112 S College (Shanahan Block, designated); 140 S College
(Alpert Block, designated), and 146 S College (Bradley Building) provide relevant examples of the
individual historic resource building types on the block.
• Note: the applicant packet mentions that 204 S College (Aggie Theater) is a designated
landmark, which reflects erroneous information on the City website that has recently been
corrected. That building will be re-surveyed as part of the aforementioned survey project, and
staff recognizes it may meet the criteria for recognition as a historic resource. Other properties on
that block will also be surveyed (Tony’s, Ragstock, Urban Egg) in the same time frame.
E Mountain Avenue:
• Kissock Block, 115 E Mountain (designated landmark designed by Montezuma Fuller)
Packet Pg. 17
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 3
The general character of the historic resources includes the following details:
Massing/Articulation/Scale:
• 1 and 2 stories in height
• Narrow in width (25 to 50 foot storefront models) or longer wall planes broken up into more narrow
modules (e.g. Poudre Garage, Zoric Cleaners)
• Simple rectilinear forms (with exception of McHugh-Andrews House)
Materials:
• Primary building material is brick in varying shades from blonde to red, primarily traditional running bond
but also some Roman brick from later commercial era (see 146 Remington, which features Roman brick
in both running bond and stacked design).
• McHugh-Andrews House: roughcut sandstone is primary material
Fenestration:
• Commercial storefronts (older buildings with residential or office units above, featuring vertically oriented,
rectangular punched windows)
• Vertically oriented, rectangular windows featured in various patterns and groupings
• Windows outlined/defined by decorative details and surrounds (arched lintels, transoms, contrasting brick
or stone)
Design Details:
• Range of styles reflecting building type and era (primarily commercial and automotive)
• Mostly flat rooflines with decorative elements at cornices and parapets
• Horizontal brick banding also used to provide detail.
• Sandstone details (sills, lintels, foundations)
REVIEW CRITERIA AND INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT:
Land Use Code (LUC) Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources contains the applicable standards for
new buildings, where designated or eligible historic landmarks or historic districts are part of the development site
or surrounding neighborhood context.
Packet Pg. 18
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 4
3.4.7(E)(1): Design Requirements for a Proposed Development
Applicable
Code
Standard
Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met
(Complies/Does
Not Comply)
Massing
and
Building
Articulation
1. New construction shall be similar in width or, if larger, be
articulated into massing reflective of the mass and scale of historic
resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side
alley.
Key Questions:
Are there enough elements included in this design that break up the
horizontal wall planes to sufficiently meet the intent of this requirement?
How well does the project reflect the typical scale and modulation of
ground floor commercial spaces and rhythms within the area of adjacency?
Discussion:
The overall scale and wall length of this building, relative to the historic
resources in the area of adjacency, calls for wall plane articulation that
create smaller perceived modules. The Downtown District code has a
related provision establishing that walls more than 100 feet on the base,
below the stepback, must be broken up into 50-foot maximum modules.
As requested, the applicant has provided additional elevation details of the
building base and closeup renderings of pedestrian-level views to assist
with understand how the wall modulation elements, window design and
detailing, and depth of recesses will be experienced.
The applicant notes the following:
Massing: We have studied and adjusted the punched openings on the
Level 2 structural parking to harmonize with the rest of the building.
Incorporating the land of 143 Remington dramatically improved the
northeast façade elevations. We have added (4) apartments along
Remington Street to further break up the façade. We also studied the
façade and windows on Level 1 by adding a light blue color to the entry
doors in addition to the light bronze and dark bronze accents, and by
adjusting the brick banding to make the street approach more friendly and
attractive.
Articulation of the Remington Side: As mentioned above, the incorporation
of the land of 143 Remington has dramatically improved the corner
articulation. We have a full height brick facade that wraps around the
northeast corner. We also provided subtle horizontal bands at the upper
floors where metal panels are shown to break up the façade. We have also
now added the rooftop mechanical equipment on the roof which are
located near the center and have metal screening to block any views from
the street.
TBD
Packet Pg. 19
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 5
Applicable
Code
Standard
Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met
(Complies/Does
Not Comply)
Massing
and
Building
Articulation
2. New construction shall be similar in width or, if larger, be
articulated into massing reflective of the mass and scale of historic
resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side
alley.
Key Questions:
Are there enough elements included in this design that break up the
horizontal wall planes to sufficiently meet the intent of this requirement?
How well does the project reflect the typical scale and modulation of
ground floor commercial spaces and rhythms within the area of adjacency?
Discussion:
The overall scale and wall length of this building, relative to the historic
resources in the area of adjacency, calls for wall plane articulation that
create smaller perceived modules. The Downtown District code has a
related provision establishing that walls more than 100 feet on the base,
below the stepback, must be broken up into 50-foot maximum modules.
As requested, the applicant has provided additional elevation details of the
building base and closeup renderings of pedestrian-level views to assist
with understand how the wall modulation elements, window design and
detailing, and depth of recesses will be experienced.
The applicant notes the following:
Massing: We have studied and adjusted the punched openings on the
Level 2 structural parking to harmonize with the rest of the building.
Incorporating the land of 143 Remington dramatically improved the
northeast façade elevations. We have added (4) apartments along
Remington Street to further break up the façade. We also studied the
façade and windows on Level 1 by adding a light blue color to the entry
doors in addition to the light bronze and dark bronze accents, and by
adjusting the brick banding to make the street approach more friendly and
attractive.
Articulation of the Remington Side: As mentioned above, the incorporation
of the land of 143 Remington has dramatically improved the corner
articulation. We have a full height brick facade that wraps around the
northeast corner. We also provided subtle horizontal bands at the upper
floors where metal panels are shown to break up the façade. We have also
now added the rooftop mechanical equipment on the roof which are
located near the center and have metal screening to block any views from
the street.
TBD
Packet Pg. 20
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 6
Applicable
Code
Standard
Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met
(Complies/Does
Not Comply)
Massing
and
Building
Articulation
3. In all zone districts, stepbacks must be located on new buildings to
create gradual massing transitions at the same height or one story
above the height of historic resources on the development site,
abutting, or across a side alley. Additionally, in the Downtown zone
district, the widest portions of stepbacks required in the Downtown
zone district stepback standard shall be on building portions
closest to historic resources.
Key Questions:
Do the proposed stepback locations meet the code standard relative to the
closest historic resources in the area of adjacency?
Does the Commission have any additional feedback regarding positioning
and screening of mechanical rooftop elements?
Discussion:
The applicant is seeking a height modification. The historic core allows 4
stories/56’ and the proposal calls for 5 stories/57’-9”. CDNS staff is in the
process of considering the modification and is generally supportive for
requests that provide affordable housing, a defined community need and
Council priority. However, that approval will be contingent on meeting
design compatibility requirements with the building’s immediate context,
which is primarily composed of historic resources.
The Downtown zone district stepback standard, mentioned above, calls for
an average of 10 feet, and 3.4.7 imposes the additional qualification that
the widest portions should be closest to historic resources. The intent of
the code it to provide the highest level of massing compatibility at the most
sensitive locations where new construction is placed in close proximity to
smaller-scale historic resources.
The project design provides setbacks at Level 3 on Remington and Oak.
The current design shows a 10.93-foot average stepback on the
Remington elevation and a 11.41-foot average stepback along Oak.
TBD
Packet Pg. 21
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 7
Applicable
Code
Standard
Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met
(Complies/Does
Not Comply)
Building
Materials
4. The lower story facades until any stepback (required or otherwise)
must be constructed of authentic, durable, high quality materials
(brick, stone, glass, terra cotta, stucco (non-EIFS), precast
concrete, wood, cast iron, architectural metal) installed to industry
standards.
Key Questions:
Do the proposed materials (materials board available for viewing at 281 N
College) meet this standard?
The applicant notes the following:
Material: We have submitted a material board on 7/8 with the PDP
materials for your review. The tone remains warm and natural on 80% of
the façade, in addition to the attractive accent color at the stucco “slots”.
***need to add high quality stucco product info*** instead of cornice. We
also added subtle horizontal color bands at the metal panels to tie
together all the materials (brick/stucco/metal panels).
TBD
Building
Materials
5. New construction shall reference one or more of the predominate
material(s) on historic resources on the development site, abutting,
or across a side alley, by using at least two of the following to
select the primary material(s) for any one to three story building, or
the lower story facades until any stepbacks (required or
otherwise): 1) type; 2) scale; 3) color; 4) three-dimensionality; 5)
pattern.
Key Questions:
Do the proposed materials (materials board available for viewing at 281 N
College) meet this standard, as they relate to predominate materials on the
historic buildings within 200 feet?
Discussion:
The proposed light-colored brick on the building base references the
primary material of the historic resources in the area of adjacency. It is also
interesting to note that the former YMCA/Elks building on the site was light-
colored brick.
TBD
Packet Pg. 22
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 8
Applicable
Code
Standard
Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met
(Complies/Does
Not Comply)
Fenestration 6. Use at least one of the following: 1) similar window pattern; 2)
similar window proportion of height to width; 3) similar solid-to-void
pattern as found on historic resources on the development site,
abutting, or across a side alley.
Key Questions:
Do the new details on windows on the southern upper floors and northeast
upper floors meet this standard?
Does the proposed aluminum clad window product for levels 1 and 3 meet
this standard?
Are the windows tall enough and large enough to reflect the historic
window patterning and break up the austerity of the upper floors?
Discussion:
Note that all fenestration on the building must comply with this standard.
There are two primary window patterns to consider in the area of
adjacency: the ground floor commercial pattern of recessed and flush
storefront units and, where they exist, vertically oriented residential/office
space windows above the commercial storefronts, found in various
patterns and sets throughout the area of adjacency.
The applicant notes the following:
Fenestration: We have adjusted/enlarged the windows on the southern
upper floors to improve the elevation without sacrificing the unit inside.
The new windows at the northeast upper floors also match these modified
windows on the south. We also added some decorative bricks surrounding
the windows to give more interest/rhythm to the facade. The picture of
the aluminum clad wood windows for Level 1/3 common spaces are also
provided on the finish board. Some of the punched windows in the
commercial spaces have also been changed to be awning windows to
provide some natural ventilation for those spaces.
TBD
Packet Pg. 23
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 9
Applicable
Code
Standard
Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met
(Complies/Does
Not Comply)
Design
Details
7. Use select horizontal or vertical reference lines or elements (such
as rooflines, cornices, and bell courses) to relate the new
construction to historic resources on the development site,
abutting, or across a side alley.
Key Questions:
Do the proposed reference elements in the design satisfy the intent of this
standard?
Do the design features for Level 2 effectively address the Commission’s
concerns regarding visual impact of the garage design features and
lighting?
Discussion:
The applicant provides the following:
Design: We have kept the “curve” façade design and enhanced it with
horizontal bands in the upper stories at the metal panel. The recessed
corner entry has remained in the design, but it has been improved by
adding a light blue color to the entry doors in addition to the light bronze
and dark bronze accents, and by adjusting the brick banding to make the
street approach more friendly and attractive. For the concern about the
visibility of the parking garage ceiling, we have added a vertical screen at
the Level 2 garage openings. Vines would be able to climb up these in the
summertime, and they will also provide some visual cut off from street
looking up at the garage ceiling.
Visibility of
Historic
Features
New construction shall not cover or obscure character-defining
architectural elements, such as windows or primary design features of
historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side
alley.
Staff finds no evidence of concern regarding this standard at this time.
N/A
Packet Pg. 24
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 10
3.4.7(E)(3): Plan of Protection
A plan of protection that outlines how historic resources will be protected during the process of rehabilitation and
new construction on the site (as well as ongoing use and operations) is required prior to the Landmark Preservation
Commission providing a recommendation to the decision maker regarding a development project.
In this case, the plan of protection will need to include summary details from the drainage analysis and information
related to construction work in close proximity to historic buildings (emphasis on Montezuma Fuller Alley).
Sample Motion for a Recommendation of Approval:
The Commission may propose a motion for a recommendation of approval of the proposal based on the following
suggested outline:
“I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of Oak 140,
finding it complies with the standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7, Table 1 that create design
compatibility between existing historic resources and infill projects.
Note: The Commission may elaborate on these basic findings, propose additional findings, or remove any of these
proposed findings according to its evaluation.
Sample Motion for a Recommendation of Denial:
The Commission may propose a motion for a recommendation of denial of the proposal based on the following
suggested outline:
“I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker denial of Oak 140, finding
it does not comply with the standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7, Table 1 that create design
compatibility between existing historic resources and infill projects.
Note: The Commission may elaborate on these basic findings, propose additional findings, or remove any of these
proposed findings according to its evaluation.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Presentation
2. Applicant Presentation
3. Project Revisions Memo
4. LPC June 17 2020 Minutes – DRAFT Response
Packet Pg. 25
1
Oak 140 - Development Review
Maren Bzdek, Sr. Historic Preservation Planner
Landmark Preservation Commission, August 19, 2020
Development Site: 140 E Oak
2
1
2
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Updated 8-19-20
Development Site: 143 Remington
3
Project Summary
4
Housing Catalyst and Downtown Development Authority (DDA)
• 5 stories; 57’-9” (Historic
Core: 4 stories; 56’)
• 79 affordable residential units
(studio, 1- and 2-bedroom)
• 6,751 s.f. ground floor
commercial
• 66 parking spaces; 24,267
s.f. – 58 required
3
4
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Updated 8-19-20
Review Process
5
Conceptual review and Round 1 review process with City staff
Neighborhood meeting via Zoom on June 9, 2020
Conceptual review with LPC on June 17, 2020
Revised, Round 2 Project Development Plan (PDP) application submitted for
staff review
Submit a federal low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) application
LPC findings and recommendation to Planning & Zoning Board re: compliance
with Land Use Code Section 3.4.7
Complete staff review; P&Z hearing
Staff completes review process following Final Development Plan (FDP)
submittal and works with the applicant to finalize the plan of protection and
development agreement.
Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(E)
6
Table 1 Design Compatibility Standards:
• Massing/Articulation/Scale (2 standards)
• Materials (2 standards)
• Fenestration (1 standard)
• Design Details (1 standard)
5
6
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Updated 8-19-20
Area of Adjacency
7
Area of Adjacency Characteristics
8
Massing/Articulation/Scale:
• 1 and 2 stories in height
• Narrow in width (25 to 50 foot
storefront models) or longer wall
planes broken up into more
narrow modules (e.g. Poudre
Garage, Zoric Cleaners)
• Simple rectilinear forms (with
exception of McHugh-Andrews
House)
7
8
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Updated 8-19-20
Materials:
• Primary building material is
brick in varying shades,
primarily standard size in
running bond but also Roman
brick, stacked and running
(146 Remington)
• McHugh-Andrews House:
roughcut sandstone is
primary material
9
10
Fenestration:
• Commercial storefronts (older
buildings with residential or office
units above, featuring vertically
oriented, rectangular punched
windows)
• Vertically oriented, rectangular
windows featured in various
patterns and groupings
• Windows outlined/defined by
decorative details and surrounds
(arched lintels, transoms,
contrasting brick or stone)
9
10
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Updated 8-19-20
Area of Adjacency Characteristics
11
Design Details:
• Range of styles reflecting
building type and era (primarily
commercial and automotive)
• Mostly flat rooflines with
decorative elements at cornices
and parapets
• Horizontal brick banding also
used to provide detail
• Sandstone details (sills, lintels,
foundations)
Key Questions: Width
12
1. New construction shall be similar in width or, if larger, be articulated into massing
reflective or the mass and scale of historic resources on the development site, abutting, or
across a side alley.
• Are there enough elements included in this design that break up the
horizontal wall planes to sufficiently meet the intent of this
requirement?
• How well does project reflect the typical scale and modulation of
ground floor commercial spaces and rhythms within the area of
adjacency?
11
12
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Updated 8-19-20
Key Questions: Height/Stepbacks
2. In all zone districts, stepbacks must be located on new building(s) to create
gradual massing transitions at the same height or one story above the height of
historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley.
Additionally, in the Downtown zone district, the widest portions of stepbacks required
by the Downtown zone district stepback standard shall be on building portions closest
to historic resources.
• Do the proposed stepback locations meet the code standard relative
to the closest historic resources in the area of adjacency?
• Does the Commission have any additional feedback regarding
positioning and screening of mechanical rooftop elements?
13
Key Questions: Materials
3. The lower story facades until any stepbacks must be constructed of authentic, durable, high-quality
materials (brick, stone, glass, terra cotta, stucco (non EFIS), precast concrete, wood, cast iron, architectural
metal) installed to industry standards.
4. New construction shall reference one or more of the predominate material(s) on historic resources on the
development site, abutting, or across a side alley, by using at least two of the following to select the primary
material(s) for . . . the lower story facades until any stepbacks: 1) Type 2) Scale 3) Color 4) 3-dimensionality
5) Pattern.
• Do the proposed materials (materials board available for viewing at 281
N College) meet the standards for authenticity, durability, and quality?
• Do the proposed materials meet the standard for referencing one or more
of the predominate materials used in historic resources within 200 feet?
14
13
14
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Updated 8-19-20
Key Questions: Fenestration
5. Use at least one of the following: 1) similar window pattern; 2) similar window proportion of
height to width; 3) similar solid-to-void pattern as found on historic resources on the
development site, abutting, or across a side alley.
• Do the new details on windows on the southern upper floors and
northeast upper floors meet this standard?
• Does the proposed aluminum clad window product for levels 1 and 3
meet this standard?
• Are the windows tall enough and large enough to reflect the historic
window patterning and break up the austerity of the upper floors?
15
Key Questions: Design Details
6. Use select horizontal or vertical reference lines or elements (such as rooflines,
cornices, and bell courses) to relate the new construction to historic resources on the
development site, abutting, or across a side alley.
• Do the proposed reference elements in the design satisfy the intent of
this standard?
• Do the design features for Level 2 effectively address the
Commission’s concerns regarding visual impact of the garage design
features and lighting?
16
15
16
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Updated 8-19-20
Key Questions
Other comments and findings?
17
17
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Updated 8-19-20
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 80524Landmark Preservation Commission Package: Round 27/27/20ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 35
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 805242Table of ContentsContents PageHistoric Context - Site ...................................................................................................................3Zoning Code ................................................................................................................................4Vision for Historic Downtown ..........................................................................................................5Surrounding Historic Landmarks .....................................................................................................6Project Summary ........................................................................................................................13Project Overview .........................................................................................................................14Land Use Code 3.4.7 - Historic and Cultural Resources .....................................................................15Floor Plans .................................................................................................................................18Parking ......................................................................................................................................23+HLJKW0RGL¿FDWLRQNeighborhood Outreach ...............................................................................................................25Design Development ....................................................................................................................28Perspective Views ........................................................................................................................30Elevations ..................................................................................................................................35Elevation Comparisons .................................................................................................................38Massing .....................................................................................................................................39Massing Comparisons ...................................................................................................................46Brick Design at Residential Entry ....................................................................................................49Ground Floor Activation ................................................................................................................50Solar Shadow Study ....................................................................................................................52Zoning / Adjustments ..................................................................................................................55Materials / Zoning Elevations .........................................................................................................57Materials Board ............................................................................................................................61Misc. Details ................................................................................................................................62ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 36
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 805243Historic Context - SiteSite Timeline:• 1907-1939: YMCA (Original Design)• 1939-1977: Elks Lodge (Renovations to Original Design)• 1977-2012: Elks Lodge (New Outer Structure)• 2012-Present: Empty LotSite Summary:7KHSURSHUW\ORFDWHGDWWKHQRUWKZHVWFRUQHURI5HPLQJWRQ6W 2DN6WZDV¿UVWGHYHORSHGLQ DVD)RUW&ROOLQVEUDQFKRIWKH<RXQJMen’s Christian Association (YMCA). While the building provided extensive interior amenities for its members, the original building never received architectural praise. The building featured 3 stories over a half-exposed basement, an ornamented front porch, and contrasting white exterior brick against red tile roof (although many hand-colored photos from this period depict incorrect colors for the exterior walls and roof). In 1939, the building was purchased for use as the Fort Collins Elks Lodge. Many renovations were made during this change RIRZQHUVKLS7KHIURQWSRUFKZDVUHPRYHGWKHH[WHULRUIDFDGHZDVDOWHUHGLQFOXGLQJQHZZLQGRZGHVLJQDQGDQHZORZHUSUR¿OHURRIwas installed. On April 26th, 1977, much of the building was destroyed by an explosion originating at a nearby business on Oak Street. The decision was made to completely rebuild the exterior of the building around the interior elements that still stood. During this rebuild, almost all exterior characteristics of the original building were lost, retaining little to no historical design. This manifestation of the building stood until 2012 when the property once again changed hands and the building was demolished. For the past eight years, the property has remained empty with plans for development by Housing Catalyst and the Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority. In 2020, Housing Catalyst also aquired the adjacent property at 143 Remington Street. The existing building at 143 Remington Street will soon be demolished, creating a full rectangular plot for the new OAK 140 building. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 37
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 805244Zoning CodeApplicable Codes/Plans/Standards:Zoning District: D (Downtown)LUC District: Downtown District LUC Subdistrict: Historic CoreNeighborhood Plan: Downtown Plan 2017Proposed Uses: Mixed-useDevelopment Review: Type 2 Review, Project Development Plan (PDP), Final Development Plan (FDP), Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC), Construction Process.Height: 4 stories and 56ft. 5 stories and 57ft-9in proposed.TOD Overlay District: Mixed-use dwellings within the TOD reduction apply to this property.ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 38
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 805245Vision for Historic DowntownThe development of Downtown Fort Collins is changing rapidly. As older buildings lose relevance and new buildings are put in their place, the city’s skyline has started to change. Given this rapid change, it is critical to protect the character and history of the area. In recent decades, Fort Collins has turned its attention WRKLVWRULFSUHVHUYDWLRQEHDXWL¿FDWLRQSURMHFWVDQGQHZGHVLJQLQWHJUDWLRQ7KHVHHϑRUWVDUHRXWOLQHGLQWKH³)RUW&ROOLQV'RZQWRZQ3ODQ´ZKLFKZDV¿UVWestablished in 1989 and was renewed and updated in 2017. The goal is to protect the rich history and essence of Downtown Fort Collins, while at the same time supporting the evolving needs of the community.+RXVLQJ&DWDO\VWDQGWKH''$DUHFRPPLWWHGWRKHOSLQJ)RUW&ROOLQVDFKLHYHLWVPLVVLRQWRSURYLGHDϑRUGDEOHKRXVLQJZKLOHDWWKHVDPHWLPHXSKROGLQJWKHH[SHFWDWLRQVRIWKH)RUW&ROOLQV'RZQWRZQ3ODQ2$.¶VGHVLJQZLOOLQWHJUDWHVXUURXQGLQJGHVLJQVWDQGDUGVDQGKHOSSUHVHUYHWKHKLVWRULFVLJQL¿FDQFHRIWKHarea. No harm will come to surrounding sites during development, and special consideration will be taken for surrounding historic landmark properties. 142 Remington St133 Remington St210 E Oak St146 S College Ave100 Block S College Ave - East SideITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 39
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 805246Surrounding Historic LandmarksITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 40
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 805247McHugh-Andrews House - 202 Remington StBuilt: 1885Architect: Montezuma Fuller(Locally, State, and Nationally Designated Historic Landmark)Design Inspiration:• Curved exterior• Lower level window scale• Porch detailsSurrounding Historic Landmarks1920 c.ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 41
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 805248Poudre Garage / US Forest Service Building - 148 Remington StBuilt: 1936(Locally Designated Historic Landmark)Design Inspiration:• Color palette• Openings• Contrasting materials (new development)Surrounding Historic Landmarks1940 c.ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 42
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 805249Kissock Block Building - 115 E Mountain Ave Built: 1889Architect: Montezuma Fuller(Locally, State, and Nationally Designated Historic Landmark)Design Inspiration:• Window walls & punches• Recessed entrances• Belts, bands, & lintelsSurrounding Historic Landmarks1900 c.1948 c.ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 43
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052410Shanahan Building - 112 S College Ave Built: 1907(Locally Designated Historic Landmark)Design Inspiration:• Window scale• Recessed entranceSurrounding Historic Landmarks1969ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 44
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052411Alpert Building - 140 S College AveBuilt: 1915 (Locally Designated Historic Landmark)Design Inspiration:• Window alignment• Masonry detailsSurrounding Historic Landmarks1925 c.ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 45
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052412Aggie Theatre Building - 204 S College Ave Built: 1906(Locally Designated Historic Landmark)Design Inspiration:• Integrated signage• Recessed entranceSurrounding Historic Landmarks1969 c.ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 46
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052413Project SummaryProject Summary:Site Area: 25,330sf, 0.581 acresExisting Structure: Building at 143 Remington St.Proposed Building Area: Approximate 94,455sfDwellings: Approximate 43,502sf, combination of studio, one and two beds, total of 79 unitsCommercial Area: Approximate 6,751sfProposed Parking Area: 24,267 sf, 66 spaces (58 required)Height: 5 stories ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 47
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 80524142$. $ϑRUGDEOHOLYLQJGRZQWRZQ $SDUWPHQWVZLWKDϑRUGDEOHUHQWVDQGJURXQGÀRRUFRPPHUFLDOVSDFHORFDWHGLQWKHKHDUWRI2OG7RZQDW(DVW2DN6WUHHWAbout OAK 140: This new downtown community is true to the missions of both the DDA and Housing Catalyst — being good stewards of their neighborhoods, creating FRPPXQLWLHVWKDWEHQH¿WDOODQGEXLOGLQJFRPPXQLW\ZKLOHLQVSLULQJFKDQJH,WDOVRDOLJQVZLWKSULRULWLHVRIWKH&LW\&RXQFLODQG&KDPEHURI&RPPHUFH FUHDWLQJDϑRUGDEOHKRXVLQJLQDKLJKO\GHVLUDEOHORFDWLRQ,W¶VDXQLTXHDϑRUGDEOHFRPPXQLW\WDUJHWLQJSHRSOHZKRDUHSDUWRIWKHGRZQWRZQZRUNIRUFH7KLVGHYHORSPHQWLVDPL[HGXVHSURMHFWLQSDUWQHUVKLSZLWKWKH'RZQWRZQ'HYHORSPHQW$XWKRULW\7KH¿UVWÀRRUZLOOKDYHFRPPHUFLDODQGRϒFHVSDFHZKLFKZLOOEHPDLQWDLQHGDQGRZQHGE\WKH''$7KHVHFRQGÀRRUZLOOEHDSDUNLQJJDUDJHDQGWKUHHÀRRUVRIDSDUWPHQWVZLOOEHDERYHWKDW+RXVLQJ&DWDO\VWZLOOIRUPDWD[FUHGLWSDUWQHUVKLSWRGHYHORSRZQDQGPDQDJHWKHKRXVLQJ,QFRPH4XDOL¿FDWLRQV The overall income average will be 60% of the area median income (AMI) 30% AMI -7 units 40% AMI - 6 units 50% AMI - 29 units 70% AMI - 29 units 80% AMI - 8 units Total - 79 unitsApartment types4 studio apartments 58 1-bedroom apartments 17 2-bedroom apartmentsTimelineConceptual Review – May 2020 Landmark Preservation Commission – June/July 2020 Planning and Zoning Board August 2020 LIHTC Application August 2020 (award by end of 2020) Construction begins Spring 2021 Construction complete Spring 2022Development TeamLand Owner, Commercial Property Manager/Owner and Equity Contributor: DDADeveloper, Residential Property Manager/Owner: Housing CatalystArchitect: Shopworks Architecture Planner/Landscape Architect: Ripley Design General Contractor: I-Kota Construction Investor/Lender: TBDProject OverviewITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 48
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052415Land Use Code 3.4.7 - Historic and Cultural ResourcesApplicable Code StandardResponseStandard Met (Y/N)(A) Purpose'HYHORSPHQWGRHVQRWDGYHUVHO\DϑHFWWKHLQWHJULW\RIKLVWRULFUHVRXUFHVRQnearby property within the area of adjacency surrounding a development site; andThe design of new structures and site plans are compatible with and protect the integrity of historic resources located within a development site and within the area of adjacency surrounding a development site. Proposed project compliances: The property is currently a vacant dirt lot with a chain link fence enclosure. The surrounding streets include parallel parking along Remington street, a public parking lot along Oak street, and the enhanced Montezuma Fuller alley completed in 2010.The design approach for OAK 140 will be transformative to this neighborhood while SURYLGLQJPXFKQHHGHGDϑRUGDEOHKRXVLQJ,WUHFRJQL]HVWKHULFKKLVWRU\RIWKLVVLWHincluding the original YMCA/ Elk’s club built in 1907. A large variety of uses currently exist adjacent to OAK 140’s property including restaurants, retail shops, multifamily residentials, commercial, and a public parking garage.Y(B) Historic Resources on the Development Site and within the Area of Adjacency. The area of adjacency shall mean an area, the outer boundary of which is two hundred (200) feet in all directions from the perimeter of the development site. Any lot or parcel of property shall be considered within the area of adjacency if any portion of such lot or parcel is within the two hundred (200) foot outer boundary.Proposed project compliances: There are 6 properties within 200 feet of our site with historical landmark designation including: 202 Remington St, 148 Remington St, 115 E Mountain Ave, 112 S College Ave, 140 S College Ave, and 204 S College Ave. Additionally, there are other properties surrounding the site that lack the RϒFLDOKLVWRULFDOODQGPDUNGHVLJQDWLRQEXWDUHVWLOORIKLVWRULFDOVLJQL¿FDQFHDQGKDYHEHHQFRQVLGHUHGGXULQJWKHGHVLJQRI2$.7KHVHSURSHUWLHVLQFOXGH 5HPLQJWRQ6W5HPLQJWRQ6W(2DN6W6&ROOHJHDVZHOODVDOOEXLOGLQJVIDFLQJ&ROOHJH$YHDQGVKDULQJWKH0RQWH]XPD)XOOHU$OOH\ZLWK2$.7KHSURSRVHGGHVLJQRI2$.YHU\SXUSRVHO\DGGUHVVHVDQGHQKDQFHVWKHArchitectural value of these historic properties through careful proportioning at the JURXQGOHYHOWRHQVXUHDSHGHVWULDQIULHQGO\H[SHULHQFHZLWKZLQGRZZDOOVEURNHQLQWRFRPSRQHQWSDUWVLQVWHDGRIVWRUHIURQWVZKLFKWHQGWREHPRUHVWHULOHYLVXDOO\7KHSURSRVHGDUFKLWHFWXUHDOVRXVHVPDVRQU\DWWKHEDVHLQDZD\WKDWUHODWHVWRWKHIRUPHU(ONVVWUXFWXUHZLWKGHHSHQWUDQFHVDWWKHJURXQGOHYHOPDVRQU\EDQGLQJDQGEHOWLQJZKHUHPDVRQU\LVXVHG/DVWWKHIHQHVWUDWLRQRIWKHDSDUWPHQWOHYHOVLVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHXSSHUOHYHOZLQGRZGHWDLOVLQVRPHRIWKHFLWHGEXLOGLQJVZLWKZLGHPXOOVEHWZHHQZLQGRZXQLWVLQVWHDGRIVNLQQ\PXOOVIRXQGLQPRUHcontemporary window frames.Y(C) Determination of Eligibility for Designation as Fort Collins Landmark.Proposed project compliances:7KLVVHFWLRQLVQRWDSSOLFDEOHWRRXUSURMHFWN/A(D) Treatment of Historic Resources on Development Sites - Design Review.Proposed project compliances:7KLVVHFWLRQLVQRWDSSOLFDEOHWRRXUSURMHFWN/ALand Use Code 3.4.7 - Historic and Cultural ResourcesITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 49
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052416(E) Design Requirements for a Proposed Development. Standards for compatibility with Historic Properties within the Area of Adjacency but Not on or Abutting the Development Site or Across a Side $OOH\ 5HYLHZWKHLGHQWL¿HGKLVWRULFSURSHUWLHVZLWKLQWKHDUHDRIDGMDFHQF\DQGLGHQWLI\DQ\SUHGRPLQDWHW\SRORJLHVDQGSULPDU\FKDUDFWHUGH¿QLQJdesign and architectural features. With those key buildings, features, or patterns in mind, apply at least two of the Standards for Compatibility with Historic Resources on the Development Site, Abutting, Or Across a Side Alley (those numbered 1 to 6). 1. New construction shall be similar in width or, if larger, be articulated LQWRPDVVLQJUHÀHFWLYHRUWKHPDVVDQGVFDOHof historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley.2. In all zone districts, stepbacks must be located on new building(s) to create gradual massing transitions at the same height or one story above the height of historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. Additionally, in the Downtown zone district, the widest portions of stepbacks required by the Downtown zone district stepback standard shall be on building portions closest to historic resources. 3. The lower story facades until any stepbacks (required or otherwise) must be constructed of authentic, durable, high-quality materials (brick, stone, glass, terra cotta, stucco (non EFIS), precast concrete, wood, cast iron, architectural metal) installed to industry standards.Proposed project compliances: (1) Massing and Building Articulation: 7KHGHVLJQRIWKHSURSRVHGSURMHFWXQGHUVWDQGVWKDWGLYHUVLW\LQZLGWKKHLJKWVHWEDFNDQGXVHDUHDSSURSULDWHLQDowntown District/ Historic Core and compliments the long history of development UDQJLQJIURPVPDOOWRPLGVL]HFRPPHUFLDOEXLOGLQJVWKH¿UHVWDWLRQDVZHOODVQHZmixed-use / multifamily developments.7KHSURMHFWKDVVXEVWDQWLDOVWHSEDFNVRQERWK5HPLQJWRQDQG2DNVWUHHWRQOHYHOWRFRPSOLPHQWWKHVFDOHRIVXUURXQGLQJEXLOGLQJVDQGPLUURUWKHVWHSEDFNRIWKH3RXGUH*DUDJHEXLOGLQJGLUHFWO\HDVW7KHUHDUHDOVRVWHSEDFNVRQOHYHODORQJ2DN6WUHHWDQG5HPLQJWRQ6WUHHWWRKHOSHDVHWKHWUDQVLWLRQEHUWZHHQWKHKHLJKWRI2$.DQGQHLJKERULQJSURSHUWLHV)LQDOO\WKHUHLVDOVRD³VORW´LQWKHPLGGOHRIWKHEXLOGLQJZKLFKKDVDJUHDWLPSDFWRQUHGXFLQJWKHEXLOGLQJ¶VPDVVDQGSURYLGHVDWHUUDFHZLWKXUEDQgreenery.(2) Upper Story Stepback on Remington St: Understanding the need for an eased WUDQVLWLRQEHWZHHQ2$.DQG(TXLQR[%UHZHU\DQXSSHUVWRU\VWHSEDFNIDFLQJ5HPLQJWRQ6WUHHWKDVEHHQLPSOHPHQWHGWROHVVHQWKHFRQWUDVWEHWZHHQWKHWZREXLOGLQJIRUPV(3) Facade Details: $ORQJ5HPLQJWRQ2DNVWUHHWDQG0RQWH]XPD)XOOHU$OOH\KLJKTXDOLW\ODUJHZLQGRZVDUHSURYLGHGRQOHYHOWRSURYLGH³VKRSIURQW´DSSHDUDQFH+RUL]RQWDOZLQGRZPXOOVDUHWKLFNDQGDUHSURYLGHGWRVLPXODWHDFRUQLFHRQOHYHO$GGLWLRQDOO\WKHVWXFFRXVHGIRUWKHXSSHUVWRULHVZLOOEHDKLJKTXDOLW\GHVLJQ 7KUHHFRDWVRIVWXFFRZLWK7\YHNDQGDOD\HURI*UDGH'SDSHURQWRS)LQLVKFRDWWRFRQWDLQKLJKSHUIRUPDQFHFRORUDQWVLQWHJUDWHGLQWRDFU\OLFSRO\PHU¿QLVKIRUPXODWHGIRUsuperior fade resistance).YLand Use Code 3.4.7 - Historic and Cultural ResourcesITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 50
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052417Land Use Code 3.4.7 - Historic and Cultural Resources4. New construction shall reference one or more of the predominate material(s) on historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley, by using at least two of the following to select the primary material(s) for any one to three story building or the lower story facades until any stepbacks (required or otherwise): 1) Type 2) Scale 3) Color 4) Three dimensionality 5) Pattern5. Use at least one of the following: 1) Similar window pattern 2) Similar window proportion of height to width 3) Similar solid-to-void pattern as found on historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley.6. Use select horizontal or vertical reference lines or elements (such as URRÀLQHVFRUQLFHVDQGEHOWFRXUVHV to relate the new construction to historic resources on the development site, abutting or across a side alley.(4) Building Materials: $ORQJ5HPLQJWRQ2DN6WUHHWDQG0RQWH]XPD)XOOHU$OOH\JUDGHWROHYHOLVIXOO\FRYHUHGZLWKEULFNDQGLQFOXGHVKLJKTXDOLW\ODUJHZLQGRZVRQOHYHOZKLFKFRPSOHPHQWVDGMDFHQWEXLOGLQJV/HYHOKDVRSHQLQJVZLWKVFDOHSURSRUWLRQLQUHVSRQVHWRWKHOHYHOZLQGRZVZLWKSODQWHUER[HVZKLFKFRPSOHPHQWWKHVWUHHWVFDSHRIWKHGRZQWRZQGLVWULFW¶VSODQWHUVDQGIXUQLWXUH7KHEULFNDOVRH[WHQGVWROHYHORQWKHVRXWKZHVWHOHYDWLRQDORQJ2DNVWUHHWDQGZUDSVWRFRYHUDSRUWLRQRIWKHEXLOGLQJIDFLQJ0RQWH]XPD)XOOHU$OOH\SUHVHQWLQJDPRUHIRUPDOarchitectural expression towards College Ave. A similar masonry expresion is used on WKHQRUWKHDVWFRUQHUDVZHOO7KHUHPDLQLQJEXLOGLQJPDWHULDOVRQOHYHOXSWRWKHURRILQFOXGHPHWDOSDQHOVZLWKGLϑHUHQWWH[WXUHVDQGPXOWLFRORUHGVWXFFRV7KHSURSRVHGEXLOGLQJGHVLJQDOVRLQFOXGHVDGHGLFDWHGDUWSDQHORQWKHXSSHUVWRU\RIWKHVRXWKZHVWDQGQRUWKHDVWFRUQHUVRIWKHEXLOGLQJZLWKWKHSRWHQWLDOIRUKDYLQJDPXUDOGRQHE\DORFDODUWLVWWRLQWHJUDWHWKHULFKKLVWRU\RIGRZQWRZQ(5) Window Design: 2$.¶VZLQGRZGHVLJQKDVEHHQGLUHFWO\LQÀXHQFHGE\the patterns found in surrounding historic landmark fenestration. Tall ground-level windows provide contrast to the smaller upper story residential windows, a proportion WKDWLVYHU\FRPPRQDPRQJKLVWRULFEXLOGLQJVLQ'RZQWRZQ)RUW&ROOLQV5HVLGHQWLDOwindows also mimic pattern design and solid-to-void proportions common among KLVWRULFEXLOGLQJVIRXQGRQWKHEORFNRI6&ROOHJH$YH(6) Belting:,QDQRWKHUHϑRUWWRLQWHJUDWH(TXLQR[%UHZHU\ZLWK2$.¶VGHVLJQKRUL]RQWDOEHOWLQJKDVEHHQLPSOHPHQWHGLQWKHPDVRQU\SDWWHUQ7KLVEHOWLQJLVEDVHGRQWKHKHLJKWRI(TXLQR[%UHZHU\DQGKDVEHHQYHU\LQWHQWLRQDOO\SODFHGWRKHOSintegrate the two designs. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 51
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052418Floor PlansLevel 1 Floor PlanITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 52
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052419Floor PlansLevel 2 Floor PlanITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 53
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052420Floor PlansLevel 3 Floor PlanITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 54
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052421Floor PlansLevel 4 Floor PlanITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 55
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052422Floor PlansLevel 5 Floor PlanITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 56
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052423Parking• Parking Required: 48 Residential Parking Spaces* *HQHUDO2ϒFH6SDFHV** 58 Total Parking Spaces• On-Site Parking Provided: 66*Note: Residential parking requirement uses TOD parking standards and assumes 50% of the units will be 60% AMI or less for an additional 50% parking reduction on those units.
&RPPHUFLDOSDUNLQJUHTXLUHPHQWZLOOXVH72'SDUNLQJVWDQGDUGV UHGXFWLRQIRUJHQHUDORϒFH ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 57
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052424+HLJKW0RGL¿FDWLRQ+HLJKW0RGL¿FDWLRQ+RXVLQJ&DWDO\VWDQGWKH''$DUHFRPPLWWHGWRKHOSLQJDFKLHYHWKH&LW\RI)RUW&ROOLQVJRDOVIRUDϑRUGDEOHKRXVLQJ ,QRUGHUWREXLOG DϑRUGDEOHKRXVLQJXQLWVZLWKJURXQGÀRRUFRPPHUFLDODQGDGHTXDWHSDUNLQJRQWKHVLWHDW(2DN6WDPRGL¿FDWLRQIRUEXLOGLQJKHLJKWLVEHLQJUHTXHVWHG7KHMXVWL¿FDWLRQWRDSSURYHWKLVPRGL¿FDWLRQLQFOXGHVPHHWLQJWKHGH¿QHGFRPPXQLW\QHHGIRUDϑRUGDEOHKRXVLQJ 7KH/DQG8VH&RGHVWDWHVWKDWWKHGHFLVLRQPDNHUPD\JUDQWDPRGL¿FDWLRQRIVWDQGDUGVLIWKHGHFLVLRQPDNHU¿QGVWKDWWKH0RGL¿FDWLRQPHHWVRQHRIWKHMXVWL¿FDWLRQFULWHULDLQFOXGLQJ±7KHJUDQWLQJRIWKHPRGL¿FDWLRQZRXOGUHVXOWLQ«DVXEVWDQWLDOEHQH¿WWRWKH&LW\E\UHDVRQRIWKHIDFWWKDWWKHSURSRVHGSURMHFWZRXOGsubstantially address an important communityQHHGVSHFL¿FDOO\DQGH[SUHVVO\GH¿QHGDQGGHVFULEHGLQWKHFLW\¶V&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQRULQDQDGRSWHGSROLF\RUGLQDQFH« 7KHSURSRVHGSURMHFWLVDQDϑRUGDEOHKRXVLQJFRPPXQLW\WKDWZLOOUHVXOWLQDVXEVWDQWLDOEHQH¿WWRWKH&LW\,WLVGHVLJQHGWRDGGUHVVWKHFULWLFDOQHHGIRUDϑRUGDEOHUHQWDOKRXVLQJLQWKHFRPPXQLW\7KHQHHGIRUDϑRUGDEOHKRXVLQJLVGH¿QHGLQ&LW\3ODQDQGWKH$ϑRUGDEOH+RXVLQJ6WUDWHJLF3ODQ7KHDGRSWHG$ϑRUGDEOH+RXVLQJ6WUDWHJLF3ODQVHWVWKHJRDOWRKDYHRI)RUW&ROOLQVKRXVLQJVWRFNEHFRPSULVHGRIDϑRUGDEOHKRXVLQJ GH¿QHGDVhousing for residents earning 80% AMI or less), increasing to 10% beyond 2020. Currently, the City is hundreds of units short of meeting this goal. 2QHRIWKHWRSLGHQWL¿HGSLOODUVLVWRLQFUHDVHWKHLQYHQWRU\RIDϑRUGDEOHUHQWDOXQLWV 7KHRSSRUWXQLW\WRSURYLGHDϑRUGDEOHKRXVLQJIRU KRXVHKROGVLVDVLJQL¿FDQWVWHSWRZDUGVDGGUHVVLQJWKLVLPSRUWDQWFRPPXQLW\QHHGDQGSURYLGHVDVXEVWDQWLDOEHQH¿WWRWKHVHLQGLYLGXDOVDQGWKHFRPPXQLW\DVDZKROH+HLJKW-XVWL¿FDWLRQ/,+7&$VWKHGHYHORSHURIWKHDϑRUGDEOHKRXVLQJFRPSRQHQW+RXVLQJ&DWDO\VWZLOOEHXWLOL]LQJ)HGHUDO DQGSRVVLEOH6WDWH /RZ,QFRPH+RXVLQJ7D[&UHGLWV /,+7& WRGHYHORSWKHSURMHFW7KH/,+7&HTXLW\LVWKHPRVWFULWLFDOFRPSRQHQWRIWKHSURMHFW¿QDQFLQJ7KH/,+7&SURJUDPKDVVSHFL¿Frequirements and associated costs. There is a general economy of scale that is necessary to make LIHTC projects feasible. The most recent reports tell us that the average size of a 4% LIHTC project in Colorado is 114 units. In general, projects that are closer to 100 units are more viable, stable, and FRVWHϑHFWLYHZKHQXWLOL]LQJWKH/,+7&SURJUDP:KHQDSSURDFKLQJWKHSURJUDPPLQJIRU2$.WKHWHDPZDQWHGWRPD[LPL]HWKHGHQVLW\DQGHϒFLHQF\RIWKHSURMHFWZKLOHDOVREDODQFLQJWKHVL]HKHLJKWSDUNLQJQHHGVDQGFRVWRIWKHEXLOGLQJ,WZDVQRWIHDVLEOHWRDFKLHYHWKHQHFHVVDU\QXPEHURIXQLWVLQDEXLOGLQJOHVVWKDQ¿YHVWRULHVLQKHLJKW7KHRQO\ZD\WRKDYHIHZHUVWRULHVZRXOGEHWRPRYHWKHSDUNLQJIURPWKHVHFRQGÀRRUSRGLXPWRDQXQGHUJURXQGIRUPDWRUUHGXFHWKHQXPEHURIXQLWVE\HOLPLQDWLQJWKHWKÀRRU7KHXQGHUJURXQGSDUNLQJRSWLRQZDVSUREOHPDWLFEHFDXVHRIWKHXQLTXHFRQ¿JXUDWLRQRIWKHVLWH7KHSDUNLQJJDUDJHOD\RXWZDVH[WUHPHO\LQHϒFLHQWDQG\LHOGHGIDUIHZHUSDUNLQJVSDFHVDQGZDVDOVRFRVWSURKLELWLYH7KHRWKHURSWLRQWRHOLPLQDWHWKHWKÀRRUGRHVQRW\LHOGHQRXJKXQLWVWRPDNHWKHSURMHFWYLDEOH7KHSURSRVHGVWRU\EXLOGLQJLVWKHSODQWKDWEHVWPHHWVWKHJRDOVRIWKHSURMHFWWRGHOLYHUWKHJUHDWHVWDPRXQWRIDϑRUGDEOHKRXVLQJWKDWLVIHDVLEOHZKLOHHPEUDFLQJKLJKTXDOLW\GHVLJQWKDWUHFRJQL]HVDQGLVVHQVLWLYHWRWKHsurrounding community.ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 58
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052425Neighborhood OutreachNeighborhood OutreachHousing Catalyst and the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) are committed to thoughtful, transparent, and inclusive SXEOLFRXWUHDFK8WLOL]LQJQDWLRQDOEHVWSUDFWLFHVDQGWRROVGHYHORSHGVSHFL¿FDOO\IRUDϑRUGDEOHKRXVLQJGHYHORSPHQW+RXVLQJCatalyst traditionally works to uncover any key issues and stakeholder desires at the beginning of the process. With a long standing reputation for quality and transparent public outreach, we are proud to continue this commitment for OAK 140. The strategy to involve the community in the planning and design process is underway.Over the past few months, Housing Catalyst, the DDA, and Shopworks Architecture have jointly conducted numerous individual and small group stakeholder meetings via Zoom. Beginning with the most direct stakeholder, the previous owner RI5HPLQJWRQWKHHϑRUWEHJDQZLWKDWRXURI+RXVLQJ&DWDO\VW¶VPRVWUHFHQWO\FRPSOHWHGGHYHORSPHQWDW9LOODJHRQHorsetooth. Following the tour, a number of sit-down meetings allowed the team to gain valuable historical information as well as hear a variety of current contexts and listen to any concerns and key considerations. With design underway, the team now maintains a regular bi-weekly meeting to secure regular feedback and maintain ongoing communication with this key stakeholder.In addition, the team created a map and matrix of all surrounding property owners to schedule meetings with as many owners as possible. To date, the Development Team has hosted eight individual and small group meetings (in addition to the regular meetings with 143 Remington’s previous owner), and has provided two updates to the DDA Board of Directors. The small group format allowed for detailed review of the site plan and architecture while also gaining valuable feedback about the project. Each meeting also created the opportunity to form relationships and build community around a shared passion for downtown Fort Collins. The summary table includes the details for each meeting and also demonstrates the strong support for the project in general. The DDA Board, as owners of the property at 140 E. Oak, were unanimous in their approval of the proposed site plan on May 14, 2020. Additionally, following the second DDA Board of Directors update on July 16, 2020, the DDA Board has given DSSURYDORIWKH¿QDODUFKLWHFWXUDOGHVLJQBeyond these individual meetings, the larger City required Neighborhood Meeting took place on June 9th.ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 59
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052426Name, Business and AddressDate of Meeting/sComments1 KGB HoldingsMike Guerriero112 and 130-134 S College04/28/20 & 05/11/20 Supportive of the design and concept; existing DDA enhanced alley trash enclosure is highly utilized by Crown Pub and needs to be maintained; construction could have a noise impact on 2nd floor residential tenants who work late hours; questions about residential rental rates.2The CupboardJim and Carey HewittKilwins- Nora Hill05/04/20 Great building and concept; Excited to see this happen downtown; Want to enhance the pedestrian friendliness of the alley.Interest in adding artwork to own building to compliment the new building. Supportive of DDA moving enhanced alley trash enclosure to south side of 129 1/2 Remington Street. Offered support to speak at P&Z and to Council members.3 Burt’s Logo - 142 Remington - Burt Nunnelee & 210 E Oak - Walter Hickman& Tricia Diehl05/05/20 Nice design.Questions about ground floor tenant use and price range for apartments. Inquired about timeline for approval and construction phases, price range of residential units. Expressed interest in multi-bedroom units for own employee needs.4 Bud Frick 05/08/20 Interesting and good-looking building, like the organic lines; could consider marking the floors with brick or banding to break up the massing and add solar shades; Look at creative ways to improve relationship to historic buildings specifically on Remington Street; Think about showing movies on the big firewall facade, 3-D projection mural like Old Fire House Alley, or decorative LED backlit screens panels that change color at night to break up mass of firewall. No modules in storefronts that match downtown pattern. Inquired about rent structure of apartments.5 Wadoo Home and Gifts - Amy SatterfieldOne Tribe Creative - Paul Jensen05/08/20 Supportive - Great building;Questions about how best to target downtown workers; make note of the current criminal activity on corner of College & Oak Street and parking lot where public restrooms located; Think about Old Firehouse Alley and how it comes to life at nightNeighborhood OutreachITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 60
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 80524276 New Block One Commercial Properties - 145 E Mountain - Chris Ray05/08/20 Thinking about own highest and best use redevelopment of his property. Is there any specific benefit (city incentives) to being in close proximity to affordable housing that are offered?7 Equinox Brewing - Colin Westcott 02/19/20 - Introduction Meeting05/12/20 - Spark Site Plan and Concept ReviewGood looking building; consider that Montezuma Fuller Alley can be blocked a lot for deliveries; Question - will there be issues with snowdrift or impact to the access drive with new building height?8 200 S College - C3 Real Estate - Jesse Laner & First Western Trust Bank - Justin Crowley05/18/20 Good building design; Questions about parking and apartment rental ratesBackground,QDGGLWLRQWRWKHSURMHFWRXWUHDFKXQGHUZD\2$.LVWKHFXOPLQDWLRQRI\HDUVRIFRPPXQLW\RXWUHDFKHϑRUWV7KHDowntown Development Authority hosted a multi-day charrette in 2016 to hear from downtown stakeholders and community members about their interests, concerns, and vision for the property at 140 E Oak Street. It became evident through that SURFHVVWKDWWKHUHZDVDVLJQL¿FDQWQHHGDQGGHVLUHIRUDϑRUGDEOHKRXVLQJIRUSHRSOHZRUNLQJLQDQGDURXQGGRZQWRZQ,QMarch 2017, the City of Fort Collins adopted the Downtown Plan. The Plan describes a renewed vision and policy direction IRUWKHIXWXUHRIGRZQWRZQ³7KRXVDQGVRISHRSOHVKDUHGWKHLUGUHDPVIRUWKHIXWXUHRI'RZQWRZQDQGWKHUHQHZHGYLVLRQSUHVHQWHGLQWKLV3ODQUHÀHFWVDFRPPXQLW\FRQYHUVDWLRQDERXWKRZZHZDQWWRJXLGHWKHQH[WVWDJHVRI'RZQWRZQ¶VVXFFHVV´(Downtown Plan Executive Summary, 2017). This community conversation resulted in several relevant policies, including additional housing and more housing types downtown and higher density and quality building design.7KHSURSRVDOE\+RXVLQJ&DWDO\VWDQGWKH''$WREULQJIRUZDUGDPL[HGXVHSURMHFWZLWKJURXQGÀRRUFRPPHUFLDOVSDFHDQG DϑRUGDEOHDSDUWPHQWVLQDEHDXWLIXOO\GHVLJQHGEXLOGLQJLVDVSHFL¿FHϑRUWWRLPSOHPHQWWKHFRPPXQLW\¶VYLVLRQNeighborhood OutreachITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 61
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052428Design Development1st Step:Conceptual Patterns2nd Step:=RQLQJ,QÀXHQFHV)LUVW,PSUHVVLRQV3rd Step:A Deeper Investigation...... And Authentic, Durable, High-Quality Materials & InspirationITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 62
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052429Design Development4th Step:Contextual Aliveness5th Step:Hundertwasser: Fine Art + Built Form6th Step:Try These Ideas Out7th Step:LearningAh Ha...8th Step:SynthesisITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 63
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052430Perspective View - SE CornerITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 64
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052431Perspective View - SE CornerITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 65
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052432Perspective View - SW CornerITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 66
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052433Perspective View - NE CornerITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 67
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052434Perspective View - NW CornerITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 68
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052435OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052435Elevations35OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 80524ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 69
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052436OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052436Elevations36OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 80524ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 70
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052437OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052437Elevations - Courtyard37OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 80524ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 71
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052438Elevation ComparisonsLooking WestLooking NorthITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 72
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052439Massing- E Oak St. Looking WestITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 73
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052440Massing - Remington St. Looking SouthITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 74
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052441Massing - Remington St. Looking NorthITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 75
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052442Massing - S College Ave. & E Oak St. Looking EastITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 76
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052443Massing - S College Ave. & E Oak St. Looking East (Winter)ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 77
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052444Massing - Old Town Square Looking SouthITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 78
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052445Massing - S College Ave. Looking EastITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 79
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052446Massing Comparisons5 Story Building6 Story BuildingITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 80
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052447Massing Comparisons5 Story Building6 Story BuildingITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 81
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 80524485 Story Building6 Story BuildingMassing ComparisonsITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 82
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052449Brick Design at Residential EntryITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 83
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052450Ground Floor ActivationITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 84
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052451Ground Floor ActivationITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 85
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052452Solar Shadow Study9:00AM12:00PM3:00PM6:00PM (SUNSET AT 8:31PM)- June 20thITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 86
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052453Solar Shadow Study - September 21st9:00AM12:00PM3:00PM6:00PM (SUNSET AT 6:58PM)ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 87
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052454Solar Shadow Study - December 21st9:00AM12:00PM3:00PM6:00PM (SUNSET AT 4:39PM)ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 88
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052455Zoning / Adjustments498249834949 83
498 2
4 9 8 3
49 8 349824981
TELECVAULTELECELECVAULTTELEVAULTELECVAULTELEC+ELEC+ELECVAULTELEC+ELECBRKRELECBRKRVAULTCABLECVAULTCABLECAC(;,67,1*6+$5('7(1$1775$6+72%(5(/2&$7('%<''$
6(7%$&.6+23)5217
6+23)5217
6+23)5217
6+23)5217
6+23)5217
6+23)5217
6+23)5217
2$.
6,7(3/$1ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 89
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052456Zoning / Adjustments
$9(5$*(67(3%$&.
$9(5$*(67(3%$&.
2$.
/(9(/3/$1ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 90
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052457Materials / Zoning Elevations/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
%($5,1*
3$5$3(7
/(9(/
*5281'3/$1(
67$,572522)67$,572522)0$;+(,*+7$//2:('
0$6215<9(1((5:0$6215<%$1',1*67((/ &$%/(75(//,60(7$/3$1(/3$57678&&26<67(0),;('3/$17(56$/80,180&/$':22':,1'2:69,1</:,1'2:6$781,7621/<'(&25$7,9(6&5((1$//(<6(7%$&.
/,1(2)7232)522) %(<21'3$5$3(7 352326('%8,/',1*+(,*+7
3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1(5(0,1*721670217(=80$)8//(5$//(<(/(9$7,2160$7(5,$//(*(1'%5,&.0$6215<9(1((53$57678&&26<67(06'(&.0(7$/3$1(/ 6+$67$:+,7(0'(&.0(7$/3$1(/ 6+$67$:+,7('28%/(5,%0(7$/3$1(/ 6+$67$:+,7(
6287+(/(9$7,21ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 91
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052458Materials / Zoning Elevations/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
%($5,1*
3$5$3(7
/(9(/
*5281'3/$1(
67$,572522)0$6215<9(1((5:0$6215<%$1',1*67((/ &$%/(75(//,60(7$/3$1(/3$57678&&26<67(0),;('3/$17(56$/80,180&/$':22':,1'2:69,1</:,1'2:6$781,7621/<'(&25$7,9(6&5((1/,1(2)7232)522) %(<21'3$5$3(7 3523(57</,1(0$;+(,*+7$//2:('
352326('%8,/',1*+(,*+7
6+$5('$&&(66'5,9(2$.67(/(9$7,2160$7(5,$//(*(1'%5,&.0$6215<9(1((53$57678&&26<67(06'(&.0(7$/3$1(/ 6+$67$:+,7(0'(&.0(7$/3$1(/ 6+$67$:+,7('28%/(5,%0(7$/3$1(/ 6+$67$:+,7(
($67(/(9$7,21ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 92
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052459Materials / Zoning Elevations/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
%($5,1*
3$5$3(7
/(9(/
*5281'3/$1(
67$,572522)0$;+(,*+7$//2:('
0$6215<9(1((5:0$6215<%$1',1*0(7$/3$1(/),;('3/$17(563$57678&&26<67(09,1</:,1'2:6$781,7621/<'(&25$7,9(6&5((1/,1(2)7232)522) %(<21'3$5$3(7 352326('%8,/',1*+(,*+7
3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1($//(<6(7%$&.
67(3%$&.833(56725<63$&()25085$/&217(177%'(/(9$7,2160$7(5,$//(*(1'%5,&.0$6215<9(1((53$57678&&26<67(06'(&.0(7$/3$1(/ 6+$67$:+,7(0'(&.0(7$/3$1(/ 6+$67$:+,7('28%/(5,%0(7$/3$1(/ 6+$67$:+,7(
1257+(/(9$7,21ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 93
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052460Materials / Zoning Elevations/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
%($5,1*
3$5$3(7
/(9(/
*5281'3/$1(
67$,572522)0$6215<9(1((5:0$6215<%$1',1*0(7$/3$1(/3$57678&&26<67(0),;('3/$17(56$/80,180&/$':22':,1'2:69,1</:,1'2:6$781,7621/<'(&25$7,9(6&5((1/,1(2)7232)522) %(<21'3$5$3(7 3523(57</,1(352326('%8,/',1*+(,*+7
3523(57</,1(0$;+(,*+7$//2:('
67(3%$&.833(56725<6+$5('$&&(66'5,9(2$.6763$&()25085$/&217(177%'(/(9$7,2160$7(5,$//(*(1'%5,&.0$6215<9(1((53$57678&&26<67(06'(&.0(7$/3$1(/ 6+$67$:+,7(0'(&.0(7$/3$1(/ 6+$67$:+,7('28%/(5,%0(7$/3$1(/ 6+$67$:+,7(
:(67(/(9$7,21ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 94
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052461Materials BoardITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 95
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052462Misc. DetailsSECTION AT LEVEL 2 GARAGE OPENINGKarl Foerster & Green Gem Boxwood ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 96
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052463Misc. Details3X3 TS POST;CONTINUOUS, 3X3 TS TOP RAIL; WELD TO TS POSTL2X4X1/4; WELD TO 3X3 TS POST TO CREATE FRAMEROOF ASSEMBLY3X3 TS BOTTOM RAIL; WELD TO TS POST6(&7,21(/(9$7,214" PREFINISHED CORRUGATED METAL DECKING; COORD. COLOR WITH ARCH. ROOF ASSEMBLYANGLE; WELDED TO POST & THRU-BOLTED TO TRUSS BLOCKINGROOFING BOOT FLASHING PER MANUF.*5,'23(1,1*6,//%5,&.%(<21'52:$/7(51$7(63527586,21',67$1&(72&5($7(+25,=217$/3$77(513/$17(5:+(5(6+2:1$1&+25$61(('('%5,&.6,//&86720%5,&.62/',(5%5,&.5811,1*%21'
7<30(&+6&5((1:$//#522)
7<3%5,&.&2856,1*#*$5$*(23(1,1*ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 97
OAK 140 Multi-Family Development140 East Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 8052464Misc. Details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
1$,/,1*),1:,1'2:#0(7$/3$1(/::22')5$0,1*ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 98
MEMO 8/6/2020
301 W 45th ave. Denver, CO 80216 303 433-4094
To: Meg Dunn, Chair
Alexandra Wallace, Co-Vice Chair
Michael Bello
Mollie Bredehoft
Kurt Knierim
Elizabeth Michell
Kevin Murray
Anne Nelsen
From: Chad Holtzinger
Regarding: Oak 140 (Formally called Spark)
CC: Name
Summary of change and response.
Since last meeting on 6/17/ 2020, we have made several revisions including followings.
1.The small building located adjacent to our site (143 Remington) is in the process of being
incorporated into our site, and the revised design includes that parcel.
2.Since we are incorporating the land of 143 Remington into our design, our building is now 5 stories
(57'-9") in height instead of 6 stories (71'-0”) in height.
3.The unit count increased from 78 to 79 units.
4.Since we are incorporating the land of 143 Remington, the parking stall count has increased. Now we
have 66 stalls compared to 54 previously noted.
5.The incorporation of 143 Remington dramatically improved the northeast corner façade along
Remington and the private access drive.
Response to each section.
Massing: We have studied and adjusted the punched openings on the Level 2 structural parking to harmonize
with the rest of the building. Incorporating the land of 143 Remington dramatically improved the northeast
façade elevations. We have added (4) apartments along Remington Street to further break up the façade. We also
studied the façade and windows on Level 1 by adding a light blue color to the entry doors in addition to the light
bronze and dark bronze accents, and by adjusting the brick banding to make the street approach more friendly
and attractive.
Articulation of the Remington Side: As mentioned above, the incorporation of the land of 143 Remington has
dramatically improved the corner articulation. We have a full height brick facade that wraps around the northeast
corner. We also provided subtle horizontal bands at the upper floors where metal panels are shown to break up
the façade. We have also now added the rooftop mechanical equipment on the roof which are located near the
center and have metal screening to block any views from the street.
Material: We have submitted a material board on 7/8 with the PDP materials for your review. The tone remains
warm and natural on 80% of the façade, in addition to the attractive accent color at the stucco “slots”. ***need
to add high quality stucco product info*** instead of cornice. We also added subtle horizontal color bands at the
metal panels to tie together all the materials (brick/stucco/metal panels).
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 99
MEMO 8/6/2020
301 W 45th ave. Denver, CO 80216 303 433-4094
Fenestration: We have adjusted/enlarged the windows on the southern upper floors to improve the elevation
without sacrificing the unit inside. The new windows at the northeast upper floors also match these modified
windows on the south. We also added some decorative bricks surrounding the windows to give more
interest/rhythm to the facade. The picture of the aluminum clad wood windows for Level 1/3 common spaces are
also provided on the finish board. Some of the punched windows in the commercial spaces have also been
changed to be awning windows to provide some natural ventilation for those spaces.
Design: We have kept the “curve” façade design and enhanced it with horizontal bands in the upper stories at the
metal panel. The recessed corner entry has remained in the design, but it has been improved by adding a light
blue color to the entry doors in addition to the light bronze and dark bronze accents, and by adjusting the brick
banding to make the street approach more friendly and attractive. For the concern about the visibility of the
parking garage ceiling, we have added a vertical screen at the Level 2 garage openings. Vines would be able to
climb up these in the summertime, and they will also provide some visual cut off from street looking up at the
garage ceiling.
End of Memo
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 100
DRAFT
Landmark Preservation Commission Page 1 June 17, 2020
Meg Dunn, Chair Location:
Alexandra Wallace, Co-Vice Chair This meeting was conducted
Michael Bello remotely on the Zoom platform.
Mollie Bredehoft
Kurt Knierim
Elizabeth Michell
Kevin Murray
Anne Nelsen
Vacant Seat
Regular Meeting June 17, 2020
Minutes –Excerpt & Responses
•CALL TO ORDER
Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m.
(**Secretary's Note: Due to the COVID-19 crisis and state and local orders to remain safer at home and not
gather, all Commission members, staff, and citizens attended the meeting remotely, via teleconference.)
•ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Bello, Dunn, Knierim, Michell, Murray, Nelsen, Wallace ABSENT: Bredehoft
STAFF: Bzdek, Bertolini, Yatabe, Schiager
***BEGIN EXCERPT***
6.140 E. OAK MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT – CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DESCRIPTION: A six-story, mixed-use development with ground floor office and retail,
podium parking on level 2, and affordable apartment units (studio, 1 and
2 bedroom) on levels 3 to 6, to be constructed on a currently vacant
parcel in the Historic Core of the Downtown District.
APPLICANT: Owners: Downtown Development Authority (DDA) and Housing Catalyst
Design: Shopworks Architecture; Ripley Design
Ms. Nelson disclosed that her company had bid on this project, but she stated she can be fair and impartial.
Staff Report
Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She explained that the Commission has been asked to provide comments
relative to Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 for this conceptual review. Ms. Bzdek explained that the applicant has
several modifications of standards requests for this project, specifically regarding the height, setback, and
parking requirements. She noted this property is in the historic core of the Downtown District. No parking
modification required.
Ms. Bzdek explained that comments provided by the Commission will become part of the staff review
Landmark
Preservation
Commission
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 101
DRAFT
Landmark Preservation Commission Page 2 June 17, 2020
conversations. When the Applicant comes back to the Commission, it will be for a recommendation to the
decision maker, the Planning and Zoning Board. Ms. Bzdek reminded the Commission of the six design
compatibility standards included in 3.4.7.
Ms. Bzdek reviewed the history of 140 E. Oak. She pointed out the historic resources within the area of
adjacency and detailed some key characteristics in the area such as heights of 1 to 2 stories, narrow widths,
use of brick and sandstone materials, commercial storefronts and vertically oriented windows defined by
decorative detail. She discussed other design details including flat roofs with decorative cornices and parapets,
horizontal brick banding and sandstone details.
Ms. Bzdek provided some questions for the Commission to consider in their review regarding width, height,
stepbacks, materials, fenestration and design details.
Applicant Presentation
Kristin Fritz introduced herself and stated that Housing Catalyst is the housing authority for the City of Fort
Collins. She explained this is a joint project between Housing Catalyst and the Downtown Development
Authority (DDA), explained the missions of those organizations and highlighted some of Housing Catalyst’s
previous projects.
Ms. Fritz noted that this is a rare opportunity for affordable housing Downtown which is likely not to present
itself again. She said they are aiming for strong delivery of affordable housing and solid architectural design.
She provided an overview of the proposed project and discussed the desire to activate the street level while
meeting the parking demand in an efficient way. She mentioned some of the amenities that would be
incorporated into the project.
Ms. Fritz explained why underground parking was not a viable option for the project. She also explained the
need for the height modification to provide the desired number of affordable housing units.
Ms. Fritz discussed how this project meets the guidelines of the Downtown Plan. She talked about meeting the
community need for affordable housing and described the targeted demographic characteristics of the resident
population.
Ms. Fritz summarized the benefits of the project and introduced Chad Holtzinger with Shopworks Architecture
to discuss design.
Mr. Holtzinger discussed the team’s process and the evolution of the design for the project. He shared his
observations of the design elements of the surrounding properties. He talked about integrating art into urbanism
and shared some examples. He talked about the team’s efforts to keep the building active and interesting from
the street.
Mr. Holtzinger described the articulation and massing of the project. He mentioned the strategy behind the
stepbacks. He discussed the use of materials throughout the design and how they draw from the surrounding
historic resources. He talked about incorporating historic window patterns into the exterior design.
Ms. Fritz addressed the timeline for the project. She stated there is a critical funding application due August 1st
and the project needs to move through the development review and entitlement process prior to that to
demonstrate the project is ready to proceed. She talked about the neighborhood outreach they had conducted
and stated that the feedback was generally positive. They hope to come back to the LPC in July.
Public Input None
Commission Questions and Discussion
Chair Dunn said the YMCA had been a community resource when it was in this location, and mentioned she
was glad this would also be a place for people in need. She also pointed out that the other affordable housing
Downtown, such as the Northern Hotel, is only for seniors, so it is nice to see something for other age groups.
She said she heard the 2016 design charette seemed to heavily favor the need for affordable housing, and she
was glad to see this project come forward.
Mr. Bello expressed concern that there were fewer parking spaces than units and suggested the possibility of
renting spaces from the lot to the south. He also stated that it would be nice to include some ownership options
in addition to rentals. Chair Dunn was interested in more information about the parking lot to south as well. Ms.
Fritz stated it is a City-owned lot, but there is a possibility the lot could be redeveloped in the future. She
mentioned there may be a possibility of obtaining permits in other nearby parking structures.
Mr. Murray asked about the possibility of a City partnership on parking. Matt Robenalt with the DDA stated the
financial resources are not available at this time. There are now more parking stalls provided than are
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 102
DRAFT
Landmark Preservation Commission Page 3 June 17, 2020
required by code. We are providing 66 parking stalls, but only 59 are required.
Chair Dunn asked how long the apartments will be affordable. Ms. Fritz said there is a 50-year minimum, but
Housing Catalyst is committed to permanent affordability.
Chair Dunn asked about maintenance. Ms. Fritz said their budget includes maintenance, property
management, staffing, and building reserves over the course of 15 years. She explained the financing is
contingent upon evaluation of these budgeting considerations.
Chair Dunn asked whether 146 Remington is eligible for landmark designation. Ms. Bzdek confirmed that it is,
as well as the property where Equinox Brewery is located.
Mr. Bello asked about the requirements for qualification. Ms. Fritz clarified that these units are strictly for those
in the 30-80% AMI range, but while they are targeting people who are employed Downtown, they cannot restrict
the geographic area in which residents are employed.
Chair Dunn asked that the Commission comment on the questions posed by staff in order of topic.
Massing
Mr. Bello said the elevation comparison slide does a good job of illustrating how it fits into the overall massing
of the Downtown area.
Mr. Murray mentioned that the Uncommon development is the same height. Chair Dunn pointed out that
Uncommon is not in Old Town.
Chair Dunn commented that the parking level seems to be driving the design and she would prefer to see fewer
spaces to make the design fit better in Downtown. She said it causes problems with referencing the historic
widths. There was discussion about the recessed window walls and punched windows giving a sense of the
rhythm of the widths of the other buildings. Chair Dunn said that would be tough to carry up to 2nd level. Mr.
Holtzinger noted that the Code specifically states the first story should break into modules. The Level 2
parking is still in place, but we have a 2’-0” recessed area at the residential entry along Remington
Street. We have also further studied and adjusted the punched openings to harmonize with the building
as a whole.
Mr. Bello mentioned there were two slides showing the residential entrance and one had more color
differentiation than the other which helps break up the east elevation. Mr. Holtzinger explained that the building
name, Spark, would be relieved into the brick about three inches. This brick relief application still applies,
and in additional, we now have 4 apartments along Remington Street and at the corner of the shared
access drive to break up the east elevation. The window patterning for these windows also includes a
similar brick relief pattern.
Ms. Nelsen stated the solid to void pattern of the first floor doesn’t seem quite right and gives it a more private
feel which may not be the intended interface with the street level. We have studied the façade and windows
on Level 1 by adding a light blue color to the entry doors in addition to the light bronze and dark bronze
accents, and by adjusting the brick banding to make the street approach more friendly and attractive.
Some of the punched windows in the commercial spaces have also been changed to be awning
windows to provide some natural ventilation for those spaces.
Chair Dunn asked whether 3.4.7 Section 1 refers to the width of the entire building or just the first floor. Ms.
Bzdek said the code was written to apply to a variety of scenarios and not be too prescriptive.
Chair Dunn commented on the differentiation between the commercial entrance and the residential entrance.
Mr. Murray wondered about changing the commercial storefront, particularly at the corner of Oak and
Remington, to be more a traditional look and accentuate the door opening more. Ms. Nelsen commented on the
amount of glass and said it didn’t feel friendly or engaging. See comments above. We have added a light
blue color to the shopfront doors to help accentuate the entries.
Mr. Bello asked if they considered carrying the facades from farther north through first floor of Spark and then
have a break to differentiate the 2nd floor. Mr. Holtzinger said the team was concerned that the design was
getting too busy with that much architectural difference on the same elevation. Mr.
Bello also expressed that the metal and cool tone of the color are a departure from the warmer tones of the
surrounding buildings. Since 143 Remington is now part of our site, the NE corner of the design has
drastically improved by extending the brick and punched openings along Remington Street.
Ms. Nelsen commented that there was previously a large building on this site, so she is comfortable with
another large building as infill. She isn’t concerned about the height, and the Oak Street massing is an elegant
solution, but the Remington façade feels secondary for a corner building. She expressed concern about the
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 103
DRAFT
Landmark Preservation Commission Page 4 June 17, 2020
blank wall on the northeast corner. She would like to see a better sense of scale and hierarchy, perhaps
modeled off the south elevation. See comments above.
Ms. Wallace expressed general concern about the corner and lack of articulation on the blank wall. See
comments above.
Chair Dunn referenced a building off Walnut next to the Bohemian building that had a lively mural plan and
suggested something like that might be a good fit for the corner. See comments above.
Ms. Nelsen suggested incorporating fire-rated glazing or glass block. She would even support increasing the
height in some places to make room for more articulation on that façade. See comments above.
Mr. Bello stated he is not as concerned about the height.
Mr. Murray is generally not supportive of the height but agrees that the blank wall doesn’t work. See
comments above. We are now 5 stories (57'-9") instead of 6 stories (71'-0”).
Ms. Michell does not see how adding height would help the blank wall and does not support that approach.
See comments above.
Mr. Knierim stated he is intrigued with Ms. Nelsen’s suggestion of adding glazing while keeping the fire rating.
He is not as concerned with the height.
Ms. Wallace is concerned about the height and its potential effect on viewsheds. While she would like to see
the northeast corner improved, she does not support going higher to accomplish that. See comments above.
Chair Dunn stated the members seem to agree about the need to adapt the northeast corner to feel more
articulated or connected to Downtown. The members discussed the impact art could have on that corner. See
comments above.
Articulation of the Remington Side
Mr. Bello said there could be more contrast between the residential and commercial spaces and expressed a
preference for warmer colors. A material board has been submitted for the PDP (7/8). Please refer to the
board.
Mr. Murray liked the idea of a three-dimensional band that would provide more shadow lines on the upper level.
Chair Dunn suggested the pilasters might make a difference on articulating the east elevation on Remington.
We are providing a subtle horizontal color band at each level to break up the metal panel facade. As
noted above, the NE corner of the building design has drastically improved by having 143 Remington
now included in our site.
Ms. Nelsen asked about screening for the mechanical rooftop elements. Mr. Holtzinger said there would be at
least two rooftop units for air circulation. He talked about working with the fire department to ensure the fire
stairs don’t interrupt the cornice line of the building. He said they are aiming to center the equipment.
Statements still hold true.
Chair Dunn asked if anyone had comments about the stepbacks and there were no concerns.
Materials
Chair Dunn asked if the materials had been selected. Mr. Holtzinger said they are thinking about brick veneer,
clad wood windows, and prefinished corrugated steel on the upper floors. He stated the pilaster is up in the air,
including potential stucco for the mural surface. A material board has been submitted for the PDP (7/8).
Please refer to the board.
Chair Dunn asked about durability of painted stucco and expressed concern about maintaining vibrancy. Mr.
Holtzinger said there are paint materials that perform better than others, which will require additional research.
***NEED STUCCO PRODUCT DATA/ STUDY***
Ms. Nelsen said the building needs to be enlivened beyond just color; the architecture itself needs to activate
the space.
Mr. Murray said the materials were generally good but requested samples for the next meeting. A material
board has been submitted for the PDP (7/8). Please refer to the board.
Ms. Nelsen asked about the overall approach to materiality. Mr. Holtzinger talked about focusing on the
pedestrian experience with a robust masonry base and punched openings, embracing the quirkiness of
Montezuma Fuller Alley, and using more a contemporary and lighter approach with simple fenestration in the
upper residential elevations. Ms. Nelsen expressed concern that the materials are too disparate. Mr. Holtzinger
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 104
DRAFT
Landmark Preservation Commission Page 5 June 17, 2020
stated the brick is for the outer plane, the metal is for upper step-backs and the mural approach is for the insets
and cut-ins.
Ms. Nelsen suggested a cornice at the top. Chair Dunn agreed. We are providing a subtle horizontal color
band at each level to break up the metal panel façade instead of adding a cornice.
Fenestration
Chair Dunn asked about the lack of symmetry in the windows of the south upper floor. Mr. Holtzinger stated
that balance can’t be achieved while accommodating the unit floorplan necessary to accommodate interior
uses. Chair Dunn stated the plan seems to be at odds with the façade. Mr.
Holtzinger agreed and will see what he can do. We have adjusted/enlarged the windows on the southern
upper floors to improve the elevation without sacrificing the unit inside. The new windows at the
northeast upper floors also match these modified windows on the south. We also added some
decorative bricks surrounding the windows to give more interest/rhythm to the facade.
Mr. Murray agreed there is inconsistency in the windows.
Ms. Nelsen expressed concern about a lack of cohesiveness in the window rhythm. She said it feels “under-
fenestrated” on some elevations and that it is hard to see a sense of scale or hierarchy through the windows.
She asked about the window materials. Mr. Holtzinger said the ground floor windows would be wood clad, but
the upper floors would probably be vinyl with a deeper profile due to budget constraints. He talked about getting
depth and relief from the masonry. See above. A picture of the window is also shown on the material
board.
Ms. Nelsen stated the project generally needs larger windows or more glazing space. Mr. Holtzinger said that is
difficult because bathrooms are located on the south elevation. See above. We did enlarge those windows
where possible.
Mr. Bello said the inconsistency interrupts the rhythm between this building and the historic buildings nearby.
Chair Dunn asked how the metal cladding meets the windows. Mr. Holtzinger described a substantial brake-
metal cross-section with some detail and interest at the sill line with simple trim around the window body. See
updated drawings.
Design
Chair Dunn asked about the curved edges on the upper floor referencing the Mayor’s residence. Mr. Bello said
it seems subtle compared to other buildings.
Mr. Knierim said he would keep the curve referencing the Mayor's residence. He also pointed out the heavy use
of awnings on the rest of the street and wondered if that could help the rhythm. Mr.
Holtzinger said it may be a permitting issue, and may not appeal to tenants, but they could explore it. Curve
design has remained in the design.
Chair Dunn said the first-floor windows work for office use.
Ms. Nelsen said the curved edges referencing the Mayor’s reference are nice but are so subtle that it isn’t an
important feature.
Mr. Murray said a visual header on the upper windows would provide more horizontal distinction. He also
reinforced that the recessed corner entry should be brought forward and stated he didn’t care for the floating
garage. Recessed corner entry has remained in the design, but it has been improved by adding a light
blue color to the entry doors in addition to the light bronze and dark bronze accents, and by adjusting
the brick banding to make the street approach more friendly and attractive.
Chair Dunn stated the recessed entries provide some needed modularity but agreed on the issue with the
floating garage and suggested adding a curve to that corner.
Ms. Nelsen suggested that additional screening beyond the plantings would help prevent parking garage
lighting from flooding the streetscape which would create an unpleasant experience. Ms. Fritz said they had
heard that comment before and are discussing solutions. We have added a vertical screen at the Level 2
garage openings. Vines would be able to climb up these in the summertime, and they will also provide
some visual cut off from street looking up at the garage ceiling.
Chair Dunn was appreciative that the alley is acknowledged in the design.
Mr. Murray noted that the garage entrances are in the alleys on the west and north sides and inquired about
pedestrian and bike safety from drivers going in and out of garage. Ms. Fritz said that was consistent with the
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 105
DRAFT
Landmark Preservation Commission Page 6 June 17, 2020
Land Use Code.
Mr. Holtzinger asked about timing of the July LPC meeting. Ms. Bzdek stated that June 22 is the submittal
deadline. She also suggested it would be better to have more conversations with City staff between the
Conceptual and final Development Review. Ms. Fritz said they plan to go to P&Z in September.
Chair Dunn asked the members to provide final thoughts.
Mr. Knierim felt the project was good overall and just needed some small tweaks on the design. Mr. Bello
agreed.
Ms. Nelsen stated some tweaks are needed. The mural treatment doesn't seem resolved but isn't a deal-
breaker. Her biggest concern is the northeast corner.
Ms. Wallace did not express major concerns. [Secretary’s note: There was significant interference in Ms.
Wallace’s audio at this point in the meeting, making it difficult to understand.]
Ms. Michell stated the project is mostly good, although the parking isn’t great. The height is still a concern but is
okay based on the proposed use. While she likes the southeast corner, she agrees that the project needs some
tweaks.
Mr. Murray is still worried about the height. The fenestration upstairs needs tweaks, and the recessed doorways
should be changed.
Chair Dunn said the northeast corner is her biggest concern, but the rest is tweaking.
***END EXCERPT***
• OTHER BUSINESS
None
• ADJOURNMENT
Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 10:13 p.m.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager.
Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on _.
_ Meg Dunn, Chair
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 106
1
Oak 140 - Development Review
Maren Bzdek, Sr. Historic Preservation Planner
Landmark Preservation Commission, August 19, 2020
Development Site: 140 E Oak
2
1
2
ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A
Revised Applicant Presentation
Packet Pg. 106-1
Development Site: 143 Remington
3
Project Summary
4
Housing Catalyst and Downtown Development Authority (DDA)
• 5 stories; 57’-9” (Historic
Core: 4 stories; 56’)
• 79 affordable residential units
(studio, 1- and 2-bedroom)
• 6,751 s.f. ground floor
commercial
• 66 parking spaces; 24,267
s.f. – 58 required
3
4
ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A
Revised Applicant Presentation
Packet Pg. 106-2
Review Process
5
Conceptual review and Round 1 review process with City staff
Neighborhood meeting via Zoom on June 9, 2020
Conceptual review with LPC on June 17, 2020
Revised, Round 2 Project Development Plan (PDP) application submitted for
staff review
Submit a federal low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) application
LPC findings and recommendation to Planning & Zoning Board re: compliance
with Land Use Code Section 3.4.7
Complete staff review; P&Z hearing
Staff completes review process following Final Development Plan (FDP)
submittal and works with the applicant to finalize the plan of protection and
development agreement.
Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(E)
6
Table 1 Design Compatibility Standards:
• Massing/Articulation/Scale (2 standards)
• Materials (2 standards)
• Fenestration (1 standard)
• Design Details (1 standard)
5
6
ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A
Revised Applicant Presentation
Packet Pg. 106-3
Area of Adjacency
7
Area of Adjacency Characteristics
8
Massing/Articulation/Scale:
• 1 and 2 stories in height
• Narrow in width (25 to 50 foot
storefront models) or longer wall
planes broken up into more
narrow modules (e.g. Poudre
Garage, Zoric Cleaners)
• Simple rectilinear forms (with
exception of McHugh-Andrews
House)
7
8
ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A
Revised Applicant Presentation
Packet Pg. 106-4
Materials:
• Primary building material is
brick in varying shades,
primarily standard size in
running bond but also Roman
brick, stacked and running
(146 Remington)
• McHugh-Andrews House:
roughcut sandstone is
primary material
9
10
Fenestration:
• Commercial storefronts (older
buildings with residential or office
units above, featuring vertically
oriented, rectangular punched
windows)
• Vertically oriented, rectangular
windows featured in various
patterns and groupings
• Windows outlined/defined by
decorative details and surrounds
(arched lintels, transoms,
contrasting brick or stone)
9
10
ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A
Revised Applicant Presentation
Packet Pg. 106-5
Area of Adjacency Characteristics
11
Design Details:
• Range of styles reflecting
building type and era (primarily
commercial and automotive)
• Mostly flat rooflines with
decorative elements at cornices
and parapets
• Horizontal brick banding also
used to provide detail
• Sandstone details (sills, lintels,
foundations)
Key Questions: Width
12
1. New construction shall be similar in width or, if larger, be articulated into massing
reflective or the mass and scale of historic resources on the development site, abutting, or
across a side alley.
• Are there enough elements included in this design that break up the
horizontal wall planes to sufficiently meet the intent of this
requirement?
• How well does project reflect the typical scale and modulation of
ground floor commercial spaces and rhythms within the area of
adjacency?
11
12
ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A
Revised Applicant Presentation
Packet Pg. 106-6
Key Questions: Height/Stepbacks
2. In all zone districts, stepbacks must be located on new building(s) to create
gradual massing transitions at the same height or one story above the height of
historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley.
Additionally, in the Downtown zone district, the widest portions of stepbacks required
by the Downtown zone district stepback standard shall be on building portions closest
to historic resources.
• Do the proposed stepback locations meet the code standard relative
to the closest historic resources in the area of adjacency?
• Does the Commission have any additional feedback regarding
positioning and screening of mechanical rooftop elements?
13
Key Questions: Materials
3. The lower story facades until any stepbacks must be constructed of authentic, durable, high-quality
materials (brick, stone, glass, terra cotta, stucco (non EFIS), precast concrete, wood, cast iron, architectural
metal) installed to industry standards.
4. New construction shall reference one or more of the predominate material(s) on historic resources on the
development site, abutting, or across a side alley, by using at least two of the following to select the primary
material(s) for . . . the lower story facades until any stepbacks: 1) Type 2) Scale 3) Color 4) 3-dimensionality
5) Pattern.
• Do the proposed materials (materials board available for viewing at 281
N College) meet the standards for authenticity, durability, and quality?
• Do the proposed materials meet the standard for referencing one or more
of the predominate materials used in historic resources within 200 feet?
14
13
14
ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A
Revised Applicant Presentation
Packet Pg. 106-7
Key Questions: Fenestration
5. Use at least one of the following: 1) similar window pattern; 2) similar window proportion of
height to width; 3) similar solid-to-void pattern as found on historic resources on the
development site, abutting, or across a side alley.
• Do the new details on windows on the southern upper floors and
northeast upper floors meet this standard?
• Does the proposed aluminum clad window product for levels 1 and 3
meet this standard?
• Are the windows tall enough and large enough to reflect the historic
window patterning and break up the austerity of the upper floors?
15
Key Questions: Design Details
6. Use select horizontal or vertical reference lines or elements (such as rooflines,
cornices, and bell courses) to relate the new construction to historic resources on the
development site, abutting, or across a side alley.
• Do the proposed reference elements in the design satisfy the intent of
this standard?
• Do the design features for Level 2 effectively address the
Commission’s concerns regarding visual impact of the garage design
features and lighting?
16
15
16
ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A
Revised Applicant Presentation
Packet Pg. 106-8
Key Questions
Other comments and findings?
17
17
ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A
Revised Applicant Presentation
Packet Pg. 106-9
Agenda Item 4
Item 4, Page 1
STAFF REPORT August 19, 2020
Landmark Preservation Commission
PROJECT NAME
608 E DRAKE (ANTIOCH CHURCH) – CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
STAFF
Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed exterior alterations to 608 E Drake, including redesign of entrance
and additional square footage on the south elevation and wrapping the east
wing as alterations to some of the building’s historic features and materials.
APPLICANT: Andy Goldman, VFLA; AK Ford, Antioch Church
LPC’S ROLE IN REVIEW PROCESS: Provide conceptual review comments regarding the proposed alterations,
relative to their compliance with Section 3.4.7 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code.
BACKGROUND: The church at 608 E Drake was designed by Denver architect Donald L. Patton, was
constructed by the Reid Burton Construction Company in 1968-69 as the second location for the First Christian
Church. Reid-Burton also constructed the one-story, eastern classroom wing addition in 1973. The asymmetric
modern building design is composed of horizontal massing elements that reflect the varying dimensions of its
interior spaces. The building consists of several one- and two-story wings extending to the east, north and
west from its south-facing main entrance, which is tucked beneath a deep portico. Its lower exterior walls are
constructed of blonde brick with expansive cedar-shingled areas above. A modern steeple of brick and wood
shingle is another character-defining feature.
First Christian Church occupied the site until it moved to its new campus at Drake and Lemay, which occurred
over a period of time between 1981 and 1992, when the 608 E Drake property was sold to the First Free
Methodist Church of Fort Collins. In 1993, the new owner constructed the detached classroom building on the
site, just north of the original church.
Antioch Community Church, the current owner of the building, is interested in updating the appearance of the
building by replacing the existing shingle siding that has deteriorated with age allowing leaking in the building
and insect infestation. They are also interested in enlarging the entry lobby, replacing the bearing walls and
roof of the 1973 addition on the east side of the building and expanding the footprint of the eastern addition to
the north and south to create new classroom spaces, and, eventually, enlarging the sanctuary for their growing
congregation.
Tatanka Historical Associates evaluated the church at 608 E Drake in June 2020 with an intensive-level survey
and found the property to be eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation under criterion 3(C) for its reflection
of the Neo-Mansard form applied to a religious building for a church congregation that was seeking a new and
modern facility to meet its growing needs. The style was commonly used in the late 1960s and early 1970s on
apartment buildings and shopping centers and relied on a dramatic and extended application of a faux
mansard roof, constructed of wood shingles, as its primary feature. The evaluation also found that the church
Packet Pg. 107
Agenda Item 4
Item 4, Page 2
retains very good architectural integrity in all seven aspects (location, setting, design, materials, workmanship,
feeling, and association), with no major alterations since it was constructed between 1968 and 1973, which
was the primary period in which the style was in popular use. The report states, “Overall, the property exhibits
an excellent level of integrity, allowing it to clearly convey its origins in the late 1960s, its expansion in the early
1970s, its historic architectural design, and its history of use as a church facility.”
Tatanka’s evaluation of the property also determined it to be eligible for the State and National Register of
Historic Places under Criterion C on the local level for its architecture as an excellent example of a Neo-
Mansard design applied to a church, as well as under Criterion A as a religious property that derives its
primary significance from its architectural distinction. Finally, the property was also determined to be eligible
under Criterion G as a property that has achieved significance within the past fifty years because it is of
exceptional architectural importance.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
This application calls for both new construction and alterations to the existing building materials. A new, larger
entry lobby is proposed, which would enlarge the existing entrance lobby and require its redesign starting at
the recessed area west of the entrance. Additional square footage extends to the east and wraps the original
1973 east wing. The new construction features metal panels and fiber cement lap siding with a two-tone finish
meant to differentiate from and complement the original building design. The applicant also proposes to
replace the existing cedar shingle siding with Allura painted fiber cement shingle siding with a wood-tone finish
in the interest of durability. They also propose to paint the existing brick to provide a more contemporary color
palette and to alter the design of the original steeple.
Future phases include replacing the bearing walls and roof of the 1973 addition on the east side of the building
near Stover Street and expanding the space to the north and south to create new classroom spaces and
enlarging the sanctuary for the growing congregation. All phases are included in the packet materials in order
to convey the complete final product.
AREA OF ADJACENCY SUMMARY:
The “area of adjacency” for the purpose of historic review of the proposed changes is 608 E Drake.
REVIEW CRITERIA AND INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT:
Land Use Code (LUC) Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources contains the applicable standards for
new buildings, where designated or eligible historic landmarks or historic districts are part of the development site
or surrounding neighborhood context.
Applicable
Code
Standard
Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis – In General Standard
Met (Y/N)
SOI #1
A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that
requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and
spatial relationships.
The property was originally a church with classrooms and offices. The current
owner intends to continue to use it as a church with classrooms and offices.
The proposed changes, while not driven by a change of use but rather the
expanding needs within the existing use, do include alterations to several
distinctive design features, spaces, and spatial relationships.
TBD
Packet Pg. 108
Agenda Item 4
Item 4, Page 3
Applicable
Code
Standard
Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis – In General Standard
Met (Y/N)
SOI #2
The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The
removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial
relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.
As noted above, the proposed work does include removal of several historic
materials and design features in order to accommodate the new construction.
These include removal of the wood shingles, the recessed area west of the
entrance, including its chimney design feature, the original entrance canopy
design, and alterations to the original footprint and design of the east wing.
TBD
SOI #3
Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and
use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as
adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not
be undertaken.
The alterations to the steeple design, which simplify an existing character-
defining feature without completely replacing or removing it, could be
confused for the original design.
TBD
SOI #4
Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own
right will be retained and preserved.
The 1973 east wing addition, constructed during the period of original
development and within five years of the original building construction, was
completed by the same construction company and possibly under the
direction of the original architect. While not yet 50 years old, this portion of
the building is noted as significant in its own right in the historic survey form.
The applicant proposes significant alterations to this feature.
TBD
SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or
examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
The applicant notes that the existing cedar shingle siding has reached the
end of its useful life and should be replaced. Rather than an in-kind
replacement, the property owner would like to use a more durable, painted
fiber cement shingle siding in order to reduce yearly maintenance
requirements.
Where the existing building will not receive additions, the applicant is
proposing to paint the brick.
As noted above, changes to the steeple design and alterations to the façade
and the east wing should also be evaluated under this standard.
TBD
SOI #6 Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the
severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new
feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible,
materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by
documentary and physical evidence.
TBD
Packet Pg. 109
Agenda Item 4
Item 4, Page 4
Applicable
Code
Standard
Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis – In General Standard
Met (Y/N)
The applicant notes deterioration only in the cedar shingles that compose the
extended “mansard roof” design feature. The Allura product should be
evaluated under this standard, as well as the related changes that are
proposed to the steeple, which currently features cedar shingles.
SOI #7
Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the
gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials
will not be used.
The property owner would like to paint the existing brick.
TBD
SOI #8
Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such
resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. N/A
SOI #9
New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not
destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall
be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size,
scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property
and its environment.
While the massing, size, and scale of the new construction respects the
buildings existing horizontality, this must be considered in conjunction with
the obscuring and removal of existing historic features, which are necessary
in order to execute this design.
New construction features new finish materials intended to complement the
existing design.
TBD
SOI #10
New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in
such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity
of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
While the proposed design retains certain aspects of the building’s existing
form and integrity, it also would create permanent alterations to the building
on its primary elevation.
TBD
3.4.7(E)(3): Plan of Protection
A draft plan of protection that outlines how historic resources will be protected during the process of rehabilitation
and new construction on the site (as well as ongoing use and operations) is required prior to the Landmark
Preservation Commission providing a recommendation to the decision maker regarding a development project.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Presentation
2. Applicant Presentation
3. Site Form
Packet Pg. 110
1
608 E Drake (Antioch Church) – Conceptual Review
Maren Bzdek, Sr. Historic Preservation Planner
Landmark Preservation Commission, August 19, 2020
Site
2
1
2
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 111
3
History
4
3
4
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 112
5
Project Summary: Material Changes
6
• Replace square butt wood shingle
with Allura straight edge fiber
cement shingle (woodtone finish)
• Paint blonde brick on building
• Paint existing wood window
frames
• Replace framing around windows
with painted fiber cement siding
5
6
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 113
Project Summary: Additions
7
New Construction
• front and rear (entrance and 1973
addition)
• prefinished deep deck metal
panels
• painted brick veneer
• Allura lap siding with woodtone
finish
• Painted steel
• hollow metal and aluminum
storefront doors and windows,
aluminum overhead door
Add rooftop units over
entrance and on east wing
Steeple: design change
Land Use Code Section 3.4.7
8
Key Questions:
• Can additional square footage be added to the south and east
elevations in a manner that meets the standards?
• Does the proposed Allura shingle product meet the standards?
• Does the alteration to the steeple design meet the standards?
• For new construction that might occur in the future, provide guidance
on location, design, and materials that could meet the standards
7
8
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 114
Key Questions
Other pertinent questions or concerns?
9
9
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 115
COVER PAGE ANTIOCH CHURCH - BUILDING ADDITIONS 07.27.2020
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.com
BUILDING ADDITIONS
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 116
EXISTING BUILDING PHOTOS ANTIOCH CHURCH - BUILDING ADDITIONS 07.27.2020
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.com
VIEW FROM CORNER OF DRAKE ROAD AND STOVER STREET DRAKE ROAD ELEVATION
VIEW OF NORTHEAST CORNER OF BUILDING FROM STOVER STREET VIEW OF NORTHEAST CORNER OF SANCTUARY VIEW OF NORTHEAST CORNER OF BUILDING
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 117
BUILDING FLOOR PLAN WITH PROPOSED ADDITIONS ANTIOCH CHURCH - BUILDING ADDITIONS 07.27.2020
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.com
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 118
ELEVATIONS SUBMITTED FOR MINOR AMENDMENT ANTIOCH CHURCH - BUILDING ADDITIONS 07.27.2020
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.com
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 119
ELEVATIONS SUBMITTED FOR MINOR AMENDMENT ANTIOCH CHURCH - BUILDING ADDITIONS 07.27.2020
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.com
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 120
VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARONSON
A R C H I T E C T U R E + D E S I G N
STUDIO AT: 419 Canyon Avenue SUITE 200 FORT COLLINS COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | ON THE WEB AT: WWW.VFLA.COM
02/12/20EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVES ANTIOCH CHURCH
NORTH EAST PERSPECTIVE
NORTH WEST PERSPECTIVE
SOUTH EAST PERSPECTIVE
SOUTH WEST PERSPECTIVE
MINOR AMENDMENT EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVES ANTIOCH CHURCH - BUILDING ADDITIONS 07.27.2020
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.com
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 121
LPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW ELEVATIONS ANTIOCH CHURCH - BUILDING ADDITIONS 07.27.2020
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.com
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 122
LPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW ELEVATIONS ANTIOCH CHURCH - BUILDING ADDITIONS 07.27.2020
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.com
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 123
VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARONSON
A R C H I T E C T U R E + D E S I G N
STUDIO AT: 419 Canyon Avenue SUITE 200 FORT COLLINS COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | ON THE WEB AT: WWW.VFLA.COM
07/23/2020EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVES ANTIOCH CHURCH
NORTHEAST PERSPECTIVE NORTHWEST PERSPECTIVE
SOUTHEAST PERSPECTIVE SOUTHWEST PERSPECTIVE
SOUTHWEST PERSPECTIVE SOUTHEAST PERSPECTIVE
LPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVES ANTIOCH CHURCH - BUILDING ADDITIONS 07.27.2020
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.com
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 124
LPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW EXTERIOR FINISH MATERIALS ANTIOCH CHURCH - BUILDING ADDITIONS 07.27.2020
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.com
PAINTED BRICK
ALLURA
TRADITIONAL LAP
SIDING WITH
WOODTONE FINISH
ALLURA STRAIGHT EDGE
SHINGLE WITH WOODTONE
FINISH, COLOR 1
ALLURA STRAIGHT EDGE
SHINGLE WITH WOODTONE
FINISH, COLOR 2
ALLURA STRAIGHT EDGE
SHINGLE WITH WOODTONE
FINISH, COLOR 3
PREFINISHED
DEEP DECK
METAL PANEL
PAINTED STEEL
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 125
OAHP1403 Official Eligibility Determination
Rev. 9/98 (OAHP use only)
Date Initials
Determined Eligible - NR
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Determined Not Eligible - NR
Determined Eligible - SR
Architectural Inventory Form Determined Not Eligible - SR
(Page 1 of 22) Need Data
Contributes to eligible NR District
Noncontributing to eligible NR District
I. Identification
1.Resource Number:5LR14793
2.Temporary Resource Number: Not Applicable
3.County:Larimer
4.City:Fort Collins
5.Historic Building Name:First Christian Church
6.Current Building Name:Antioch Church
7.Building Address:608 E. Drake Rd.
Fort Collins, CO 80525
8.Owner Name & Address:Antioch Community Church of Fort Collins
608 E. Drake Rd.
Fort Collins, CO 80525
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 126
Resource Number: 5LR14793 Address: 608 E. Drake Rd.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 2 of 22)
II. Geographic Information
9. P.M. 6th Township 7 North Range 69 West
SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 24
10. UTM Reference Zone: 13 Easting: 494215 Northing: 4489204
11. USGS Quad Name: Fort Collins, Colorado
Year: 1960 (revised 1984) Map scale: 7.5'
12. Lot(s): Lot 1, First Free Methodist Block: Not Applicable
Church Minor Subdivision
Addition: Mae Tiley Third Annexation Year of Addition: 1959
13. Boundary Description and Justification: This legally defined parcel (97243-36-901),
clearly delineated by an urban lot and block description, includes the historic
church, its detached food pantry building, and the surrounding grounds.
III. Architectural Description
14. Building Plan: Irregular Plan
15. Dimensions in Feet: 140’ x 184’
16. Number of Stories: 1-2
17. Primary External Wall Material(s): Brick, Wood
18. Roof Configuration: Flat Roof
19. Primary External Roof Material: Unknown
20. Special Features: Tower, Porch, Chimney, Decorative Shingles, Fence
21. General Architectural Description: This large masonry church building rests upon
a concrete foundation and has a compound footprint with overall measurements
of approximately 140’ x 184’. Facing toward the south, its asymmetrical horizontal
massing ranges from one to over two stories in height, with the taller areas
occupied by the sanctuary and fellowship hall. The multiple roof areas of varying
heights are flat with parapet walls along the perimeters.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 127
Resource Number: 5LR14793 Address: 608 E. Drake Rd.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 3 of 22)
The church’s lower exterior walls are constructed of blonde bricks laid in running
bond coursing. Above the brickwork, the walls are clad in square butt cedar
shake shingles. Visually prominent on the taller areas of the building, the
expansive shingled walls give the church the appearance of having mansard
roofs of varying heights. While a mansard is typically angled, sloping inward as
it rises, in this case the shingled surfaces are vertical. Brick wall chimneys are
present on the front and back of the building. These are rectangular, match the
brickwork on the walls, and taper as they rise to terminate in glazed block caps.
Rising above the building is a tall spire capped by a wooden cross. This springs
from the first floor at the back of the building and is chimney-like in appearance.
The lower two-thirds of the spire is composed of a cylinder of blonde soldier
bricks laid in regular coursing. This extends higher toward the back as a partial
cylinder terminating in an angled top. Rising from the brick is another partial
cylinder clad in wood square butt shingles. This supports the cross at the top.
South Wall (façade): The front of the building consists of several segments, or
wings, that are of differing heights and setbacks. These reinforce its horizontality
and asymmetry. Centered on the south wall is the main entrance, which is located
beneath a deep portico. The portico is open on three sides and consists of a
concrete walkway, a ceiling and fascia clad in metal paneling, and square brick
posts that support its flat roof. At the north end of the portico, the main entrance
holds a pair of glass commercial doors with metal frames. This is flanked by large
fixed single-light windows with wood frames and kickplates below, along with
another band of four similar windows to the west.
East of the main entrance, the east wing has a one-story brick wall capped by a
metal fascia band at the parapet that extends from the front entry portico.
Recessed into the brick wall is a band of four fixed single-light windows with
kickplates below. At the building’s southeast corner are two entrances with
commercial slab doors, one holding a small narrow light. Between the doors are
three pairs of fixed single-light windows with kickplates below.
West of the entry portico is a short brick wall capped by a flat horizontal wood
band. Above that, the taller wall area is clad in square butt wood shingles. A
brick chimney rises up the middle of the wall, terminating above the roofline.
The building’s west wing projects to the south and is two levels in height. Its
lower level is reached by way of two concrete stairways with metal pipe railing.
The stairs drop to a covered concrete patio with four squared wood posts
supporting its ceiling. Two commercial slab doors on the lower level provide
access to the building. Between these are five pairs of fixed single-light windows
with kickplates. The upper level holds five pairs of fixed single-light windows
with kickplates, along with two individual windows of the same design. These
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 128
Resource Number: 5LR14793 Address: 608 E. Drake Rd.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 4 of 22)
windows are deeply recessed and framed with flat paneling. Four squared wood
posts support the ceiling of the recess. Square butt shingles clad the narrow
parapet wall above.
West Wall (side): This side of the building consists of some of the taller areas of
the building. The west wing has a low brick wall capped by a flat horizontal wood
band. Above that is the taller wall clad in square butt wood shingles. A west-
facing recessed entry is centered on the wall. This contains a pair of commercial
slab doors with a small vertical light in each.
The north wing is tall and consists of a low brick wall capped with a flat horizontal
band, with the expansive shingle-clad wall above. This contains a west-facing
recessed entrance sheltered beneath a flat hood supported by projecting brick
walls. Within the entrance is a commercial slab door.
North Wall (rear): The rear of the building consists of three primary areas of the
building. The north wall of the west wing consists of the low brick wall with wood
shingle cladding above. Toward its northwest corner is a pair of fixed single-light
windows with kickplates and a wide flat lintel. To the east of that are two levels
of five fixed single-light windows with kickplates. Although these windows are
not deeply recessed, the upper ones are bordered by a wide flat frame as on the
south. Just east of these windows is a west-facing entrance containing a
commercial slab door with a single narrow light.
The tall north wing consists of the low brick wall with an expanse of wood shingle
cladding above. It holds a north-facing recessed entrance sheltered beneath a
flat hood supported by projecting brick walls. This contains a commercial slab
door.
The building’s east wing consists of the brick wall capped by a metal parapet
band. It contains a recessed entrance. At the margin of the east and north wings
are the rear chimney and the church spire.
East Wall (side): This side of the building consists of two areas. The east wall of
the north wing holds a recessed entrance sheltered beneath a flat hood supported
by projecting brick walls. This contains a commercial slab door.
The east wall of the east wing is brick, capped by a metal parapet band. This wall
holds three entrances. At its northeast corner is a commercial slab door with a
small vertical light. Adjacent to that is a single-light window with a kickplate. The
other two entrances each contain identical doors. Between those is a band of
seven single-light windows with kickplates.
22. Architectural Style / Building Type: Neo-Mansard
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 129
Resource Number: 5LR14793 Address: 608 E. Drake Rd.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 5 of 22)
23. Landscaping or Special Setting Features: This large church occupies the central
area of the property. It is surrounded by expansive landscaped grounds in all
directions, including large grassed areas and mature trees. Paved parking lots
are present to the northeast, east and south. A playground is in the area west of
the building. To the north is a secondary building within a fenced yard. The site
is surrounded by residential neighborhoods.
24. Associated Buildings, Features or Objects:
Classroom Building (1993) – This wood frame building is located north of and
behind the church. Facing toward the west, it has a long rectangular footprint
and appears to rest upon a concrete block foundation. Its exterior walls are clad
in clapboard siding, and the low-sloped gabled roof is finished with composition
shingles. The east wall holds three entrances that are accessed by way of wood
and concrete stoops, and the southern one has a handicap ramp. Two of the
entrances contain commercial slab doors with a single vertical light in each. The
third contains a non-historic door with six small lights. Pairs of sliding windows
are found on the east and west walls. The yard areas to the east and west are
planted with grass and bordered by chain link fencing.
Barbeque Structure (1974) – This masonry structure is located north of and
behind the church and southeast of the modular building. It appears to be
constructed of the same blonde bricks that were used to erect the church. The
long rectangular structure includes three cooking areas along with adjacent flat
surfaces that would be used as countertops. At its center is a low opening for a
wood fire, with a cooking area and brick chimney above.
IV. Architectural History
25. Date of Construction: Estimate: Actual: 1968-1969
Source of Information: City of Fort Collins, Building Permit #12411 & Inspections
Records, 1968-1969
26. Architect: Donald L. Patton
Source of Information: Architectural Plans, First Christian Church, Fort Collins,
CO, 11 March 1968
27. Builder/Contractor: Reid Burton Construction Company
Source of Information: City of Fort Collins, Building Permit #12411 & Inspections
Records, 1968-1969
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 130
Resource Number: 5LR14793 Address: 608 E. Drake Rd.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 6 of 22)
28. Original Owner: First Christian Church
Source of Information: City of Fort Collins, Building Permit #12411 & Inspections
Records, 1968-1969
29. Construction History: The large church building on this site was constructed in
1968-1969. It was enlarged in 1973 with the eastern classroom addition. In 1974,
the barbeque structure was completed behind the building. The detached
classroom building was added to the northern area of the site in 1993.
30. Original Location: Yes
V. Historical Associations
31. Original Use(s): Religion / Church
32. Intermediate Use(s): Not Applicable
33. Current Use(s): Religion / Church
34. Site Type(s): Church
35. Historical background: The First Christian Church was founded in December 1892
at a meeting of sixty-six town residents. The men and women gathered in the
Mosman Block at Linden Street and East Mountain Avenue to hear a sermon
presented by Martin L. Streator, state evangelist for the Colorado Christian
Missionary Society. Following his sermon, Streator presented the group with a
covenant, which they signed to establish the new Fort Collins church. An
advisory board was formed, Sunday services and school classes commenced,
and four months after its founding the congregation received its first pastor.
Meetings continued to take place in the Mosman Block for many months before
the church was able to arrange for a building of its own.
The church’s first building was constructed in 1894 on property it had purchased
on the southeast corner of College Avenue and Magnolia Street. Due to the
difficulty of collecting pledges during the national economic depression that
started in 1893 and lasted until 1897, the 30’ x 60’ building erected at that time
amounted to little more than a “flimsy, temporary structure with creaking floor,
board walls and a canvas roof” (Miller, A House and a Gate, p. 13). In 1898, work
was finally completed on a more substantial 40’ x 50’ masonry building that
replaced the earlier structure. This was expanded and improved during the 1920s
and 1930s to accommodate a growing congregation and its need for adequate
space. The church would remain there into the post-World War II years.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 131
Resource Number: 5LR14793 Address: 608 E. Drake Rd.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 7 of 22)
In 1950-1951, the First Christian Church demolished the 1898 building but left its
1920s addition standing. It then erected a new $70,000 masonry building on the
site that doubled the seating capacity of the earlier sanctuary and provided the
congregation with a larger fellowship hall and kitchen. The church would remain
in that building for just under two decades.
As the city of Fort Collins expanded during the post-World War II years and its
population increased, the church’s membership also grew. By the mid-1960s, the
congregation had expanded to almost 670 individuals. In 1966, the church began
to study how it might accommodate such growth, and whether remodeling of its
building would serve its needs. That summer, Denver business interests
unexpectedly approached the church with an offer of $100,000 to purchase the
property. Located on the south edge of the downtown commercial district, it was
an attractive location for redevelopment. Negotiations ensued and the property
was sold in November for $110,000. This involved a down payment of $10,000 to
be followed by an additional $30,000 when the transfer was titled in December.
The remaining balance was due to be paid in June 1968. The congregation would
be allowed to occupy the building for two years before it had to move out.
With these arrangements in place, the church launched a building fund campaign
to raise the additional money needed to move to a new location. By the middle of
1967, the congregation had more than $91,000 in pledges. Rather than remain in
the downtown area, the church spent $25,000 on a vacant 4.5-acre property in
southeast Fort Collins. This was on the northwest corner of Drake Road and
Stover Street in the Mae Tiley Third Annexation, which had been approved by city
council in 1959. The First Christian Church would erect its new home on that site.
In the meantime, an architect was needed to design the building.
The church’s building planning committee spent the summer of 1967 visiting
several new churches in the region. In addition, they reviewed architectural plans
and proposals submitted by architects. This led the church to select Denver
architect Donald Patton for the project. Donald Lloyd Patton was born in Wichita
County, Kansas in 1931 and raised on his parents’ farm in Scott County. He
attended Kansas State University and then the University of Florida, where he
graduated with a degree in architecture. Between 1955 and 1958, Patton served
in the US Air Force.
Following his discharge from the military, Patton moved to Colorado with his wife
Nancy and their children. They settled in Denver, where he secured a job in the
downtown office of architect Robert Laramey. During the 1960s, Patton launched
his own architectural practice, known as the Patton Partnership, in the Capitol
Life building. He became a member of the American Institute of Architects in
1970. Later in his career, from 1988 to 2009, he served as a designer for Pepsi-
Cola. Patton died in Lone Tree south of Denver in 2010.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 132
Resource Number: 5LR14793 Address: 608 E. Drake Rd.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 8 of 22)
Patton presented the church with an entirely modern design, resulting in a
completely non-traditional building emphasizing asymmetry and horizontal
massing. Its main entrance was deeply recessed beneath a flat projecting portico.
The building’s extensive rectangular, flat-roofed wings extending to the east,
north and west were one to two stories in height. Their exterior walls featured
blonde brickwork in the lower areas, with vertical expanses of cedar shake
shingles above. Few windows would be present, distancing most of the interior
functions from the building’s surroundings. The most notable exception to this
was at the southwest corner, where two stacked and deeply recessed bands of
fixed single-light windows would face to the south. Rising from the rear of the
building was a tall, chimney-like spire of brick and wood capped by a cross.
Construction was managed by the Reid Burton Construction Company of Fort
Collins. Work began on the site in 1968 and was finished early the following year.
The congregation moved into the building in January 1969 and would occupy it
for more than two decades. Although the church had erected a new, spacious
facility, within a few years it was already running out of classroom space. In 1973,
the Reid Burton Construction Company returned to construct a 30’ x 70’, one-
story classroom wing. Located on the east side of the church, the addition was
designed to be architecturally compatible with the rest of the building. The
following year, a masonry barbeque structure was built behind the church using
the same blonde bricks as those found on the building.
In 1977, the First Christian Church purchased a 25-acre parcel of former
agricultural land on the southeast corner of Drake Road and Lemay Avenue. This
was the result of continued membership growth and the work of a site
development and planning committee tasked with figuring out how the
congregation could maintain adequate facilities for its expanding programs. In
1979, the church received approval from the Fort Collins planning and zoning
board to begin the construction of what would ultimately be a 136,000-square-foot
complex on the land it had acquired. By 1981, the congregation’s membership
had risen to 1,546 individuals. The following year, some of the church’s activities
moved into the first new building completed at Drake and Lemay.
Despite the ongoing development of the First Christian Church’s new campus,
the building at Drake and Stover remained in use by the congregation for
administrative offices and Sunday school activities. By 1989, the church’s
membership had reached more than 2,200. In 1992, the property at 608 E. Drake
Rd. was sold to the First Free Methodist Church of Fort Collins. The new owner
had a detached classroom building added to the grounds north of the building in
1993. Since that time, the property has remained in use as a church although its
ownership has since changed.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 133
Resource Number: 5LR14793 Address: 608 E. Drake Rd.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 9 of 22)
36. Sources of information:
Architectural Inventory Form, Denver Metal Finishing Building, 3100 E. 43rd Ave.,
Denver, CO (Site #5DV10161), 15 September 2006.
Architectural Plans, First Christian Church, Fort Collins, CO, 11 March 1968
Burial Record, Donald Lloyd Patton, Death in Lone Tree, CO, 19 April 2010, Place
of Burial Unknown. Record Located at www.findagrave.com.
City of Fort Collins, Building Permits Records, 608 E. Drake Rd., 1968-1993.
Davis-Kling, Liane and Lynn Smith. “First Christian Church.” Research Paper
Completed for History 610, Colorado State University, 17 April 1990.
Denver City Directories, Listings for Architect Donald L. Patton, 1960-1970.
Fort Collins Coloradoan
“University National Bank,” 19 May 1969, p. 8 (advertisement).
“Pepsi Moving Here,” 2 January 1972, p. 6.
Fort Collins Topographic Quadrangle Maps, US Geological Survey (1960, 1969,
1984)
Larimer County Assessor, Real Estate Appraisal Cards and Photographs, 608 E.
Drake Rd. (parcel 97243-36-901), County Assessor’s Office and Fort Collins
Museum of Discovery Archives.
Larimer County, Clerk & Recorder’s Office
Title Records and Related Documents, 1973-1992
(Note: Earlier records were inaccessible due to the COVID-19 pandemic.)
Mae Tiley Third Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Ordinance 10 Approving
the Plat and Authorizing Annexation, 22 January 1959.
Miller, James R. A House and a Gate: A History of First Christian Church, Fort
Collins, CO, 1892-1967. Fort Collins, CO: First Christian Church, 1967.
Photograph of the First Christian Church (C01750), Fort Collins Museum of
Discovery Archive, 1968.
Price, Jay M. Temples for a Modern God: Religious Architecture in Postwar
America. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 134
Resource Number: 5LR14793 Address: 608 E. Drake Rd.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 10 of 22)
Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO)
“Donald L. Patton, Obituary,” 23 April 2010.
US Census Records, Donald Patton, Scott County, KS, 1940.
VI. Significance
37. Local landmark designation:
Applicable Fort Collins Criteria (Fort Collins Municipal Code, Chapter 14, Section 14-5)
A. Events: Associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution
to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation (a
specific event or pattern of events)
B. Persons/Groups: Associated with the lives of persons or groups of persons
recognizable in the history of the community, State or Nation whose specific
contributions to that history can be identified and documented
X C. Design/Construction: Embodies the identifiable characteristics of a type,
period, or method of construction; represents the work of a craftsman or
architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style
and quality; possesses high artistic values or design concepts; or part of a
recognizable and distinguished group of properties
D. Information potential: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information
important in prehistory or history
Does not meet any of the above Fort Collins designation criteria
Analysis of Fort Collins Significance: In Fort Collins, a property may be eligible
for local designation even when it is found to be ineligible for the more stringent
State and National Registers of Historic Places. In addition, Fort Collins has no
minimum age for properties to be found eligible for landmarking. The First
Christian Church was built in 1968-1969 and enlarged with an eastern classroom
wing in 1973. Most of the building is older than fifty years, the National Register
standard for age, and the 1973 addition was designed to be compatible with the
original building in terms of its location, design, materials and massing. Erected
just a few years apart, they blend seamlessly, and the addition does not
negatively impact the original building’s architectural integrity
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 135
Resource Number: 5LR14793 Address: 608 E. Drake Rd.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 11 of 22)
Based upon the field documentation and research completed for this study, it is
determined that the historic First Christian Church property at 608 E. Drake Rd.
is eligible for landmark designation by the City of Fort Collins. The property is
not eligible under Criterion A for association with significant events, Criterion B
for association with a significant person or group, or Criterion D for information
potential. Instead, it is eligible under Criterion C for embodying the identifiable
characteristics of a type, period, and method of construction in the form of Neo-
Mansard architecture dating from the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Denver architect Donald L. Patton’s plans for the building called for its design
and massing to reflect the spaces of varying heights and square footages needed
for interior uses. It was also designed to exhibit elements of modern architecture
emphasizing asymmetry and horizontal massing. The building consists of
several wings extending to the east, north and west from its south-facing main
entrance, which is tucked beneath a deep portico. Its lower exterior walls are
constructed of brickwork with expansive cedar-shingled areas above. The tall
stylized non-traditional steeple is another unique feature of architectural interest.
According to the Field Guide to Colorado’s Historic Architecture and Engineering,
the design details exhibited on the First Christian Church provide a good example
of the Neo-Mansard form of architecture applied to a non-residential project.
Bearing little resemblance to the Second Empire style of the 1870s, buildings with
Neo-Mansard detailing included faux mansard roofs covered with wood shakes
and mansards on more than one level. The field guide describes the form as “a
relatively inexpensive way to obtain dramatic decorative effect.” In addition to
houses, Neo-Mansard detailing was employed on apartment buildings,
commercial buildings and shopping centers, especially during the late 1960s and
early 1970s. The church in Fort Collins was constructed during this period and
is a good example of Neo-Mansard detailing applied to a religious building.
Whether there are other churches of this form in town would need to be
determined through reconnaissance survey of the community.
While the First Christian Church also appears to be a good example of Patton’s
design skills and artistic inspiration, not enough is known about other buildings
he designed to determine how it fits into his larger body of work. Other than the
church in Fort Collins, the only buildings Patton is currently known to have
designed are a non-eligible manufacturing facility (1958) at 3100 E. 43rd Ave. in
Denver, the heavily modified University National Bank building (1969) at 2101 S.
College Ave. in Fort Collins, and the Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company building (1972)
at 1833 E. Mulberry St., also in Fort Collins. While the First Christian Church
appears to be a good representative of his work as an architect, additional
research into more of his projects would be necessary to provide context for this
particular building.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 136
Resource Number: 5LR14793 Address: 608 E. Drake Rd.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 12 of 22)
38. Applicable National Register Criteria:
A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad pattern of our history
B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past
X C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic
values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual distinction
D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or
prehistory
X Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G
Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria
39. Area(s) of significance: Architecture
40. Period of significance: 1968-1973
41. Level of significance: National No State No Local Yes
42. Statement of significance: Based upon the archival research and field
documentation completed for this project, this property was found to have been
developed between 1968 and 1973, during a period of tremendous economic
expansion and population growth in Fort Collins. Concurrent with the city’s
growth was an expansion of church membership, leading the First Christian
Church to seek a new facility that would adequately serve its needs. To achieve
this, the congregation left its longtime downtown home in favor of a developing
residential area in southeast Fort Collins. There it had a new building constructed
that was not only modern and spacious, but also reflected one of the predominant
architectural styles of the era.
The Neo-Mansard church was designed by Denver architect Donald L. Patton,
who was professionally active from around 1960 to 2009. Little is known at this
time about his larger body of work other than that he designed a non-eligible
manufacturing facility in Denver and two other buildings in Fort Collins in addition
to the church. These included the University National Bank building at 2101 S.
College Ave. (constructed in 1969, this appears to be standing but extensively
remodeled) and the Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company building at 1833 E. Mulberry St.
(constructed in 1972, this is still standing and appears to be little changed).
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 137
Resource Number: 5LR14793 Address: 608 E. Drake Rd.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 13 of 22)
Despite the fact that few of Patton’s buildings are known, his church project in
Fort Collins represents a good example of his design skills, in this case applied
to a religious building. The church has been determined to exhibit a very good
level of architectural integrity, with no major alterations completed since it was
constructed between 1968 and 1973. Whether it might be eligible under Criterion
C as a significant representative of the architect’s work will require additional
research to provide context.
What is known is that the property presents a good example of Neo-Mansard
architecture applied to a church building during the primary period in which the
style was at its height of popular use. Modern elements of the building include
its asymmetry and horizontal massing expressed through the several wings that
extend to the east, north and west from its south-facing main entrance. Many of
its exterior walls are constructed of lower brickwork with expansive cedar-
shingled areas above. This design feature is central to the Neo-Mansard form,
which was commonly used on single-family homes but also applied to non-
residential projects. The church’s tall stylized non-traditional steeple also
presents a unique modern feature of architectural interest.
Documentation of the building, combined with analysis of its architectural design
and integrity, has resulted in a conclusion that the property is eligible for the State
and National Registers of Historic Places. Its eligibility is tied to Criterion C on
the local level in the area of Architecture as an excellent example of twentieth-
century Neo-Mansard design applied to a church. Under Criteria Consideration
A, it is eligible as a religious property because it derives its primary significance
from architectural distinction. It is also meets the standard of Criteria
Consideration G as a property that has achieved significance within the past fifty
years because it is of exceptional architectural importance. The property is not
eligible for the State or National Registers under any of the other significance
criteria.
43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: The historic church
on this property was constructed in 1968-1969 and expanded to the east in 1973
with a one-story classroom addition. The design, materials and massing of the
addition are architecturally compatible with the original building and may have
been designed by the same architect (the original building contractor was also
engaged for the project). Because the addition is to the side and modest in size
in relation to the rest of the church, its impact to the original building is minimal.
Since that time, the building does not appear to have experienced any substantial
exterior alterations.
Looking at the building in light of the seven aspects of integrity defined by the
National Register of Historic Places, the church exhibits a high level of
architectural integrity. It is in its original location in what was at the time a
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 138
Resource Number: 5LR14793 Address: 608 E. Drake Rd.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 14 of 22)
developing residential area of the city. The church continues to be surrounded
by residences dating from the 1960s and 1970s, along with mature landscaping.
It retains a high level of integrity in relation to the aspects of design, materials,
workmanship, feeling and association. Overall, the property exhibits an excellent
level of integrity, allowing it to clearly convey its origins in the late 1960s, its
expansion in the early 1970s, its historic architectural design, and its history of
use as a church facility.
VII. National Register Eligibility Assessment
44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Eligible
45. Is there National Register district potential? No
Discuss: This property is not currently known to be in a location that holds an
adequate number of historic buildings that maintain architectural integrity and
that might form a National Register District.
If there is National Register district potential, is this building contributing: N/A
46. If the building is in an existing National Register district, is it contributing: N/A
VIII. Recording Information
47. Photograph numbers: #8410-8457
Negatives filed at: Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 1909, Fort Collins, CO 80522
48. Report title: Intensive-Level Documentation of the Property at 608 E.
Drake Rd., Fort Collins, CO
49. Date(s): 29 June 2020
50. Recorder(s): Ron Sladek, President
51. Organization: Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
52. Address: P.O. Box 1909, Fort Collins, CO 80522
53. Phone number(s): 970 / 689-4855
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 139
Resource Number: 5LR14793 Address: 608 E. Drake Rd.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 15 of 22)
Site Location Map
USGS Fort Collins 7.5’ Topographic Quadrangle
1960 (photorevised 1984)
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 140
Resource Number: 5LR14793 Address: 608 E. Drake Rd.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 16 of 22)
Site Diagram
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 141
Resource Number: 5LR14793 Address: 608 E. Drake Rd.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 17 of 22)
Current Photographs
South Façade, View to the Northeast
South Façade, View to the Northwest
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 142
Resource Number: 5LR14793 Address: 608 E. Drake Rd.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 18 of 22)
Current Photographs
Main Entry Portico, South Wall Chimney and Steeple, View to the Northeast
South Wall of the Southwest Wing, View to the Northwest
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 143
Resource Number: 5LR14793 Address: 608 E. Drake Rd.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 19 of 22)
Current Photographs
Southwest Wing, View to the Southeast
North Wing, View to the Southwest
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 144
Resource Number: 5LR14793 Address: 608 E. Drake Rd.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 20 of 22)
Current Photographs
East and North Wings, View to the Southwest
East Classroom Wing (1973 Addition), View to the West
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 145
Resource Number: 5LR14793 Address: 608 E. Drake Rd.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 21 of 22)
Current Photographs
Classroom Building, View to the Northwest
Barbeque Structure, View to the Northwest
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 146
Resource Number: 5LR14793 Address: 608 E. Drake Rd.
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 22 of 22)
Historic Images
Historic View of the 1968-1969 First Christian Church
Fort Collins Museum of Discovery (Image #C01750)
View to the Northwest
1968 or 1969
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 147
COVER PAGE ANTIOCH CHURCH - BUILDING ADDITIONS 07.27.2020
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.com
BUILDING ADDITIONS
ITEM 4, EXHIBIT A
Updated Applicant Presentation - Received 8-19-20
Packet Pg. 148
EXISTING BUILDING PHOTOS ANTIOCH CHURCH - BUILDING ADDITIONS 07.27.2020
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.com
VIEW FROM CORNER OF DRAKE ROAD AND STOVER STREET DRAKE ROAD ELEVATION
VIEW OF NORTHEAST CORNER OF BUILDING FROM STOVER STREET VIEW OF NORTHEAST CORNER OF SANCTUARY VIEW OF NORTHEAST CORNER OF BUILDING
ITEM 4, EXHIBIT A
Updated Applicant Presentation - Received 8-19-20
Packet Pg. 149
BUILDING FLOOR PLAN WITH PROPOSED ADDITIONS ANTIOCH CHURCH - BUILDING ADDITIONS 07.27.2020
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.com
ITEM 4, EXHIBIT A
Updated Applicant Presentation - Received 8-19-20
Packet Pg. 150
ELEVATIONS SUBMITTED FOR MINOR AMENDMENT ANTIOCH CHURCH - BUILDING ADDITIONS 07.27.2020
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.com
ITEM 4, EXHIBIT A
Updated Applicant Presentation - Received 8-19-20
Packet Pg. 151
ELEVATIONS SUBMITTED FOR MINOR AMENDMENT ANTIOCH CHURCH - BUILDING ADDITIONS 07.27.2020
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.com
ITEM 4, EXHIBIT A
Updated Applicant Presentation - Received 8-19-20
Packet Pg. 152
VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARONSON
A R C H I T E C T U R E + D E S I G N
STUDIO AT: 419 Canyon Avenue SUITE 200 FORT COLLINS COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | ON THE WEB AT: WWW.VFLA.COM
02/12/20EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVES ANTIOCH CHURCH
NORTH EAST PERSPECTIVE
NORTH WEST PERSPECTIVE
SOUTH EAST PERSPECTIVE
SOUTH WEST PERSPECTIVE
MINOR AMENDMENT EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVES ANTIOCH CHURCH - BUILDING ADDITIONS 07.27.2020
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.com
ITEM 4, EXHIBIT A
Updated Applicant Presentation - Received 8-19-20
Packet Pg. 153
LPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW ELEVATIONS ANTIOCH CHURCH - BUILDING ADDITIONS 07.27.2020
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.com
ITEM 4, EXHIBIT A
Updated Applicant Presentation - Received 8-19-20
Packet Pg. 154
LPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW ELEVATIONS ANTIOCH CHURCH - BUILDING ADDITIONS 07.27.2020
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.com
ITEM 4, EXHIBIT A
Updated Applicant Presentation - Received 8-19-20
Packet Pg. 155
VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARONSON
A R C H I T E C T U R E + D E S I G N
STUDIO AT: 419 Canyon Avenue SUITE 200 FORT COLLINS COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | ON THE WEB AT: WWW.VFLA.COM
07/23/2020EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVES ANTIOCH CHURCH
NORTHEAST PERSPECTIVE NORTHWEST PERSPECTIVE
SOUTHEAST PERSPECTIVE SOUTHWEST PERSPECTIVE
SOUTHWEST PERSPECTIVE SOUTHEAST PERSPECTIVE
LPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVES ANTIOCH CHURCH - BUILDING ADDITIONS 07.27.2020
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.com
ITEM 4, EXHIBIT A
Updated Applicant Presentation - Received 8-19-20
Packet Pg. 156
COLOR PALETTE HISTORY ANTIOCH CHURCH - BUILDING ADDITIONS 08.19.20
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.com
Unstained cedar shingles
Dark Fascia
Stained cedar shingles
White Fascia
Dark Painted Siding
Red Painted Siding
Stained cedar shingles
White Fascia
Tan Painted Siding
Tan Painted Transition Trim
Dark Painted Transition Trim
Repainted window frames
Tan Painted Transition Trim
ITEM 4, EXHIBIT A
Updated Applicant Presentation - Received 8-19-20
Packet Pg. 157
LPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW EXTERIOR FINISH MATERIALS ANTIOCH CHURCH - BUILDING ADDITIONS 07.27.2020
419 CANYON AVENUE STE 200 | FORT COLLINS, COLORADO | 970.224.1191 | 108 EAST LINCOLNWAY | CHEYENNE, WYOMING | 307.635.5710 | www.VFLA.com
PAINTED BRICK
ALLURA
TRADITIONAL LAP
SIDING WITH
WOODTONE FINISH
ALLURA STRAIGHT EDGE
SHINGLE WITH WOODTONE
FINISH, COLOR 1
ALLURA STRAIGHT EDGE
SHINGLE WITH WOODTONE
FINISH, COLOR 2
ALLURA STRAIGHT EDGE
SHINGLE WITH WOODTONE
FINISH, COLOR 3
PREFINISHED
DEEP DECK
METAL PANEL
PAINTED STEEL
ITEM 4, EXHIBIT A
Updated Applicant Presentation - Received 8-19-20
Packet Pg. 158